Page 1

                 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1230 OF 2015

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.5747 of 2015)

Kiran Chander Asri Appellant(s)

VERSUS   State of Haryana       Respondent(s)

O R D E R  

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final order

dated  28.05.2015  passed  by  the  High  Court  of

Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in  Criminal

Appeal  No.  CRA-S-1070-SB  of  2005  whereby  the

learned Single Judge of  the High Court dismissed

the appeal filed by the appellant herein and affirmed

the order dated 04.06.2005 passed by the Special

Judge,  Sonepat  in  Sessions  Case  No.  10  of

1999/2005 by  which the  Special  Judge convicted

1

Page 2

the  appellant  under  Sections  7  and  13  of  the

Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1988  (hereinafter

referred to as “the P.C. Act”) and sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two

years and a fine of  Rs.1000/- under Section 7 and

rigorous imprisonment  of  two years and a fine of

Rs.2000/-  under  Section  13  of  the  P.C.  Act.   In

default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further

rigorous  imprisonment  of  six  months.   Both  the

sentences shall run concurrently.

3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this

appeal, it is necessary to state the relevant facts in

brief.

4. On  12.08.1978,  the  appellant  joined  as

Lecturer  in  English  in  Education  Department,

Government of Haryana and was later selected as

Block  Development  and  Panchayat  Officer  and

joined as such on 21.04.1993.      

5. In the year 1995, the appellant was posted as

Block  Development  and  Panchayat  Officer

2

Page 3

Mundlana.   By  letter  dated  26.10.1994,  the

Director,  Development  and  Panchayats,  Haryana

issued  instructions  to  all  the  Deputy

Commissioners  in  the  State  of  Haryana  that  no

auction of village fish ponds should be done without

adequate advertisement and secondly, it should be

done under the supervision of the Committee after

following  the  due  procedure  of  reserved  price

fixation by Fisheries Department.

6.  The  Gram  Panchayat  of  Mundlana  village

passed a resolution for auction of fish ponds in the

village and sent it for approval to the appellant, who

fixed the auction for 15.03.1995.  On that day, the

appellant did not go to the village but deputed the

Panchayat  Officer,  who  auctioned  only  the

Panchayat  land  and  refused  to  auction  the  fish

ponds.  Thereafter the auction of the fish ponds was

fixed for 22.03.1995.  On that day also due to the

absence of the appellant, the auction could not take

place.   Thereafter  when   Ranbir  Singh  –  the

3

Page 4

Sarpanch  of  the  Village  (Complainant)  met  the

appellant,  he  demanded  Rs.2000/-  as  bribe  to

conduct  the  auction.  The  Complainant,  however,

expressed his inability to pay the bribe amount. The

appellant then negotiated the amount of bribe.  On

22.03.1995,  again  the  appellant  did  not  go  to

Mundlana  Village  and  postponed  the  auction  for

06.04.1995  but  at  that  time  he  clearly  told  the

Complainant that so long as the bribe money is not

paid to him, the auction would not be held.   

7. On  04.04.1995,  the  Sarpanch  filed  an

application to the S.P.,  State Vigilance Bureau (in

short  “SVB”),  Karnal  stating  therein  the  aforesaid

facts.   On  receipt  of  the  application,  Mr.  M.S.

Ahlawat,  the  then  S.P.,  SVB,  Karnal  (in  short

“Investigating  Officer”)  wrote  a  letter  to  the

Government seeking permission to arrange the raid.

On  06.04.1995,  he  got  the  permission  from  the

Government  to  carry  out  the  raid.   Thereafter  he

wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat

4

Page 5

to depute one Gazetted Officer  for being joined in

the raiding party.  As per the direction of the Deputy

Commissioner,  Mr.  Ram  Mehar,  Xen,  Irrigation

joined the raiding party.   

8. On 07.04.1995, the raiding party went to the

office of the appellant.  Hari Chand, the Inspector

was deputed as a shadow witness and instructed to

give a fixed signal by moving his hand over the head

after  the  acceptance  of  the  bribe  money  by  the

appellant  The  Sarpanch-the  Complainant  and

shadow witness went to the office of the appellant

and after 10 minutes, the shadow witness passed

the signal upon which the raiding party went inside

the  office  of  the  appellant  and  saw  him  putting

something in the drawer.  The Investigating Officer

gave  his  introduction  to  the  appellant,  who  after

some persuasion opened the drawer and took out

the bribe money and handed over the same to the

Investigating Officer.  After that, the appellant was

taken into custody.

5

Page 6

9. On  that  basis  FIR  No.  11  dated  07.04.1995

was registered at  Police  Station Vigilance Bureau,

Karnal against the appellant under Sections 7 & 13

of the P.C. Act.   

10. After completion of investigation, challan was

submitted against the appellant before the Special

Court to face the trial.  The prosecution examined

ten  witnesses  and  in  defence,  the  appellant

examined three witnesses.   

11. Vide  order  dated  04.06.2005  the  Special

Judge,  Sonepat  in  Sessions  Case  No.  10  of

1999/2005 convicted the appellant under Sections

7  and  13  of  the  P.C.  Act  and  sentenced  him  to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two

years and a fine of  Rs.1000/- under Section 7 and

rigorous imprisonment  of  two years and a fine of

Rs.2000/-  under  Section  13  of  the  P.C.  Act.   In

default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further

rigorous  imprisonment  of  six  months.   Both  the

sentences shall run concurrently. It was held that

6

Page 7

the  prosecution  was  able  to  prove  beyond

reasonable  doubt  the  demand  and  acceptance  of

bribe money of Rs.2000/- by the appellant.  

12. Challenging  the  order  of  conviction  and

sentence,  the  appellant  filed  an  appeal  being

CRA-S-1070-SB of 2005 before the High Court. By

judgment  dated  28.05.2005,  the  learned  Single

Judge of the High Court concurred with the findings

of the Special Judge and finding no merit, dismissed

the  appeal  and  upheld  the  order  passed  by  the

Special Judge.

13. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant–

accused  has  filed  this  appeal  by  way  of  special

leave.

14. It  is pertinent to mention here that by order

27.07.2015  this  Court  issued  notice  to  the

respondent  only  on  the  question  of  quantum  of

punishment awarded to the appellant.  

15. In the light of the order dated 27.07.2015,  the

only question which arises for consideration  in this

7

Page 8

appeal  is  whether  having  regard to  the  facts  and

circumstances of the case, any case is made out by

the  appellant  to  call  for  any  interference  in  the

quantum of punishment awarded to him  by the two

courts below and if so, to what extent.  

16. In  view  of  this  limited  question,  it  is  not

necessary for  this Court to examine the merits of

the case insofar as it  relates to the issues, which

resulted  in  appellant's  conviction  for  the  offences

punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the P.C. Act.

17. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant,  confining

his  submission  to  the  quantum  of  punishment,

submitted that  keeping  in  view the  fact  that  this

litigation is pending  for the last  20 years because

the  incident  is  of  the  year  1995  (07.04.1995),

secondly,  the  appellant  is  now  quite  old  and  is

suffering from various ailments, and further he has

lost his job  and also undergone few months in jail

as under trial and again few days after conviction,

and  lastly  looking  to  the  small  amount  of  bribe

8

Page 9

involved (Rs.2000/-),  this Court should take some

lenient  view  in  awarding  lesser  punishment  and

reduce it to minimum as prescribed in Sections 7

and 13 of the P.C. Act prior to the amendment  in

these sections.  It is more so as the learned counsel

submits when this Court has now finally upheld the

appellant’s conviction.    

18. In contra, learned counsel for the respondent

supports the impugned order.

19. Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to accept the submission of the learned

counsel for the appellant in part.

20.  Taking into consideration the totality  of  the

facts and circumstances of the case, such as firstly,

the incident is of 1995; secondly, this litigation is

pending for the last 20 years; thirdly, the appellant

is  now  quite  old  and  suffering  with  ailments;

fourthly, he has already lost his job, we consider it

just  and proper,  in peculiar  facts  of  this  case,  to

9

Page 10

reduce  the  punishment  awarded  to  the  appellant

from two years to that of one  year.  

21. Since  at  the  relevant  time  when  the  offence

was  committed  by  the  appellant,  the  minimum

punishment prescribed in Sections 7 and 13 was six

months  and  one  year  respectively,  which  may

extend  to  five  years  and  seven  years  respectively

hence this Court can reduce the punishment of 2

years  awarded  to  the  appellant  to  one  year

notwithstanding the amendment made in Sections 7

and  13  by  Act  No.  1  of  2014  (w.e.f.16.01.2014)

which, in our view, will not apply to the case of the

appellant  in  the  light  of  Article  20  of  the

Constitution of India.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal

succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. Impugned

order is modified to the extent that the appellant is

awarded  one  year  punishment  for  the  offences

punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the P.C. Act.

So far as the fine amount imposed by the Courts

10

Page 11

below is concerned, it is upheld. If the appellant is

on bail,  his bail bonds stand cancelled and he be

taken  into  custody  forthwith  to  undergo  the

remaining  period  of   sentence  awarded  by  this

Court.

                  ………...................................J. [J. CHELAMESWAR]

                             …...……..................................J.

 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi; September 17, 2015.         

11