V.K. VERMA Vs CBI
Bench: SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,KURIAN JOSEPH
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000404-000404 / 2014
Diary number: 28885 / 2013
Advocates: M. YOGESH KANNA Vs
Page 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 404 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No. 8628/2013]
V. K. Verma … Appellant (s)
Versus
CBI … Respondent (s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.:
Leave granted.
2. Appellant is the accused in C.C. No. 205 of 1994 on the file
of the Special Judge, Delhi. He was tried for offences under
Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 5(1)(d) read
with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
The charge was that the appellant demanded and
accepted bribe of Rs.265/- from a contractor by name
Sanjeev Kumar Sawhney on 21.12.1984. According to the
appellant, the said contractor had an axe to grind since the
appellant did not budge to his demand for improper
1
REPORTABLE
Page 2
measurement of the work done by him and he was actually
trapped at his instance. FIR was registered on 21.12.1984.
The sessions court convicted him of the charges and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one and a half years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each
under the charged Sections, as per Judgment dated
10.04.2003.
3. The High Court declined to interfere with the conviction
and sentence and dismissed the appeal as per Judgment
dated 22.07.2013 and, hence, the appeal.
4. One wonders as to how it took ten years for the matter to
be registered as sessions case and stranger is it to see that
the trial also took almost ten years and still stranger is that
the matter took ten years in the High Court.
5. Pursuant to dismissal of the appeal before the High Court,
the appellant surrendered before the Special Judge on
03.10.2003 and he was sent to custody. On 28.10.2013,
this Court issued notice limited to the quantum of
sentence. Thereafter, by Order dated 16.12.2013, the
appellant was enlarged on bail.
2
Page 3
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident
is of the year 1984, the appellant is now aged 76 and he is
sickly. Heard also the counsel for the CBI who has strongly
opposed even any lenient approach by this Court.
7. Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 deals
with criminal misconduct. Section 5(2) deals with
punishment, which reads as under:
“5. Criminal misconduct. (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine :
Provided that the court may, for any special reasons recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year.”
8. Section 161 of IPC was omitted by the introduction of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The pre-amended
proviso dealt with the offence of public servant taking
gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an
official act. The punishment was:
“… imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both”
3
Page 4
9. Thus, as far as punishment under the old Section 161 of
IPC is concerned, there is no mandatory minimum
punishment. The question is whether the sentence could
be reduced for any special reason. Under the old
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, there is a mandatory
minimum punishment of one year. It may extend to seven
years. However, under the proviso, the court may, for
special reasons, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less
than one year.
10. In imposing a punishment, the concern of the court is with
the nature of the act viewed as a crime or breach of the
law. The maximum sentence or fine provided in law is an
indicator on the gravity of the act. Having regard to the
nature and mode of commission of an offence by a person
and the mitigating factors, if any, the court has to take a
decision as to whether the charge established falls short of
the maximum gravity indicated in the statute, and if so, to
what extent.
11. The long delay before the courts in taking a final decision
with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the accused is one
of the mitigating factors for the superior courts to take into
consideration while taking a decision on the quantum of
4
Page 5
sentence. As we have noted above, the FIR was registered
by the CBI in 1984. The matter came before the sessions
court only in 1994. The sessions court took almost ten
years to conclude the trial and pronounce the judgment.
Before the High Court, it took another ten years. Thus, it is
a litigation of almost three decades in a simple trap case
and that too involving a petty amount.
12. In Ashok Kumar v. State (Delhi Administration)1, the
commission of offence of theft was in 1971 and the
Judgment of this Court was delivered in 1980. The
conviction was under Section 411 of IPC. This Court having
regard to the purpose of punishment and “the long
protracted litigation”, reduced the sentence to the period
already undergone by the convict.
13. In Sharvan Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh2, the
commission of offence was in 1968 and the judgment was
delivered in 1985. The conviction was under Sections 467
and 471 of IPC. In that case also, the long delay in the
litigation process was one of the factors taken into
consideration by this Court in reducing the sentence to the
period already undergone.
1 (1980) 2 SCC 282 2 (1985) 3 SCC 658
5
Page 6
14. In Ajab and others v. State of Maharashtra3 also, this
Court had an occasion to examine the similar situation. The
offence was committed in 1972 and this Court delivered
the Judgment in 1989. The conviction was under Section
224 read with Section 395 of IPC. In that case also
“passage of time was reckoned as a factor for reducing the
sentence to the period already undergone”. This Court in
that case, while reducing the substantive sentence,
increased the fine holding that the same would meet the
ends of justice.
15. The appellant is now aged 76. We are informed that he is
otherwise not keeping in good health, having had also
cardio vascular problems. The offence is of the year 1984.
It is almost three decades now. The accused has already
undergone physical incarceration for three months and
mental incarceration for about thirty years. Whether at this
age and stage, it would not be economically wasteful, and
a liability to the State to keep the appellant in prison, is the
question we have to address. Having given thoughtful
consideration to all the aspects of the matter, we are of the
view that the facts mentioned above would certainly be
3 1989 Supp (1) SCC 601 6
Page 7
special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence but
enhancing the fine, while maintaining the conviction.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The substantive
sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already
undergone. However, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is imposed
as fine. The appellant shall deposit the fine within three
months and, if not, he shall undergo imprisonment for a
period of six months. On payment of fine, his bail bond will
stand cancelled.
………..…………………….….. …………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
………………….. …………………………J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH) New Delhi; February 14, 2014.
7