Supreme Court Partially Modifies Sentence in Corruption Case Against Village Development Officer

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Bhagyan Das vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Anr., addressed the issue of corruption and financial misappropriation in government schemes. The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for misappropriating government funds meant for the poor but modified the sentence in light of the long delay in prosecution and the appellant’s advanced age.

Background of the Case

The case pertains to an incident from the year 1991-92, where the government had sanctioned financial assistance under the Poor Persons Residential Scheme. The complainant, Smt. Deveshwari Devi, was granted Rs. 9,800 under the scheme, out of which:

Rs. 4,600 was a loan (to be repaid).
Rs. 5,200 was government assistance (non-refundable).

During the relevant period, the appellant, Bhagyan Das, was serving as a Village Development Officer (V.D.O.). According to the prosecution:

The appellant obtained the complainant’s signature and misled her into believing she had received the full sanctioned amount.
However, he paid her only Rs. 4,000 and allegedly misappropriated the remaining funds.

Criminal Proceedings Against the Appellant

On November 5, 2004, nearly 12 years after the incident, Smt. Deveshwari Devi lodged a formal complaint, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). After an investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant under:

Section 409 IPC: Criminal breach of trust by a public servant.
Section 420 IPC: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

The trial court, in Criminal Case No. 307 of 2006, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 409 IPC but convicted him under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to:

Two years of rigorous imprisonment.
A fine of Rs. 2,000.

Appeal Before the Sessions Court

Aggrieved by the conviction, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2009 before the learned Sessions Judge. The Sessions Court upheld the conviction but:

Reduced the sentence from two years to one year of rigorous imprisonment.
Sustained the fine of Rs. 2,000.

Review Before the Uttarakhand High Court

The appellant further approached the Uttarakhand High Court through Criminal Revision No. 168 of 2009. During the pendency of the revision petition, both the appellant and the complainant jointly filed a compounding application, seeking to settle the matter.

The High Court, however, declined the compounding request, reasoning that:

“This is not a case that affects only the complainant, but it has an impact on society at large. Therefore, the offense should not be compounded.”

Additionally, the High Court dismissed the revision petition on November 21, 2016, maintaining the conviction and sentence.

Appeal Before the Supreme Court

The appellant challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court, raising the following arguments:

The case was based on a delayed complaint, filed 12 years after the alleged incident.
As per Section 320 CrPC, an offense under Section 420 IPC is compoundable with court permission, which should have been granted given the complainant’s willingness to settle.
The appellant is a senior citizen, and the case should be viewed with leniency.

Arguments by the State

The respondent-State opposed the appeal, contending:

Corruption by public servants has a wider societal impact and should not be casually compounded.
The conviction was based on sound evidence, and the courts had already reduced the sentence.
The High Court was justified in declining the compounding application.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the case in light of the principles governing compounding of offenses and judicial discretion in sentencing. The Court made the following observations:

While an offense under Section 420 IPC is technically compoundable, courts must consider the broader impact of the crime on society.
The High Court correctly ruled that public servant misconduct affects not only the direct victim but also public trust in governance.
However, considering the age of the appellant and the delay in filing the complaint, the punishment could be revisited.

The Supreme Court held:

“Merely because an offense is compoundable under Section 320 CrPC, the court is not bound to accept a compounding application. The nature of the offense and its impact on society must be considered.”

At the same time, the Court took into account that:

The offense took place nearly 27 years before the final appeal was being decided.
The appellant had already served a part of his sentence.
The complainant had been compensated and was no longer pursuing the matter.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court modified the sentence while maintaining the conviction:

The conviction under Section 420 IPC was upheld.
The sentence of one-year rigorous imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone.
The fine of Rs. 2,000 was affirmed.

The Court clarified:

“Considering the long passage of time and the appellant’s advanced age, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.”

Conclusion

This ruling reaffirms the principle that corruption cases must be dealt with strictly, but also acknowledges that excessive delays and the age of the accused can be mitigating factors in sentencing. The judgment ensures that public servants engaging in financial misconduct are held accountable while maintaining a humane approach in exceptional circumstances.

Petitioner Name: Bhagyan Das.
Respondent Name: The State of Uttarakhand & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice R. Subhash Reddy.
Place Of Incident: Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand.
Judgment Date: 11-03-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Bhagyan Das vs The State of Uttarak Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-03-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category