Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 797    OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.8161/2013)

K.L. BAKOLIA        ..Appellant

Versus

STATE THROUGH DIRECTOR, C.B.I.     ..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J  .

Leave granted.

2. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment

passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Delhi  in  Criminal  Appeal

No.207/2003  dated  11.7.2013,  in  and  by  which,  the  High

Court  confirmed  the  conviction  of  the  appellant  under

Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the sentence imposed

on him.

1

Page 2

3. Shamsher  Singh-complainant  (PW4)  is  the  sole

proprietor  of  M/s.  Colonel’s  Security  Services  working  on

contract  for  providing  security  staff  to  Indian  Agricultural

Research Institute  (IARI),  Pusa,  New Delhi  on annual  basis

from 1.03.1993 which was subsequently renewed from year to

year  basis  upto  31.03.1996  and  the  contract  was  due  for

renewal on 1.04.1996.  Complainant stated that on 2.04.1996

when he contacted the appellant for renewal of his contract

and payment of his outstanding dues, the appellant demanded

Rs.50,000/-  as  a  bribe  for  renewal  of  contract  and  when

complainant  stated  that  he  was  not  in  a  position  to  pay

Rs.50,000/-,  the bribe amount  was reduced to Rs.20,000/-

and  the  complainant  was  asked  to  meet  the  appellant  on

3.04.1996 and pay the  bribe  amount.  Complainant was not

interested in paying the bribe and on the same day he went to

CBI office and narrated the facts.  The complainant was asked

to come on the next day with Rs.20,000/- by CBI officer.  In

the  evening  of  3.04.1996,  the  appellant  rang  up  the

complainant and inquired him as to why he did not contact

2

Page 3

him on the said date, for which, the complainant replied that

he would come to the residence of the appellant on the next

day between 1.00 to 2.00 p.m.    

4. On 4.4.1996, the complainant visited CBI office and

he was asked to submit his complaint in writing.  Based on

the  complaint,  FIR  was  registered  in  RC

No.24(A)/96-CBI/ACB/N.Delhi  under  Section  7  of  the

Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1988.   Raiding  party  was

constituted  and  pre-trap  proceedings  were  conducted  and

Rs.20,000/- consisting of  forty currency notes of rupees five

hundred  denomination  each  treated  with  phenolphthalein

powder were given to complainant.  As the complainant alone

was supposed to go and contact  the appellant,  a  two piece

recorder consisting of recorder and mic-cum-transmitter along

with audio cassette was put in the pocket of the complainant.

A further direction was given to the complainant to give signal

to the trap party by saying ‘Gin Leejiye’.   

5. The complainant and the trap party went to Pusa

Complex at about 1.45 p.m. The complainant after switching

3

Page 4

on  the  mic-cum-transmitter  went  inside  the  house  of  the

appellant who welcomed him.  The appellant inquired from the

complainant  ‘Laye  Ho’ and  the  complainant  replied  in  the

affirmative.   When  complainant  gave  the  bribe  amount  of

Rs.20,000/- to the appellant, he raised the cushion of the sofa

and  asked  the  complainant  to  keep  the  money  under  the

cushion of  the  sofa.   As  the  complainant  insisted  that  the

money should be handed over in the hand, the complainant

took the tainted money in his right hand and kept it under the

cushion  of  his  sofa.  The  complainant  gave  the  signal  ‘Gin

Leejiye’ where after the CBI officials rushed into the drawing

room of  the  appellant  and questioned  him about  the  bribe

money and the appellant was perplexed and kept mum.  On

instructions from the officer, PW6 lifted the cushion of the sofa

and the trap money was recovered.  Wash of both the hands of

the appellant in the sodium carbonate solution turned pink.

Trap laying officer prepared the seizure memo and completed

other  formalities  of  trap  proceedings.   After  completion  of

investigation,  chargesheet  was  filed  against  the  appellant

4

Page 5

under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d)

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’).  

6. To  bring  home  the  guilt  of  the  accused,  the

prosecution has examined ten witnesses.  Upon consideration

of the evidence, learned Special Judge convicted the appellant

under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of

the  Act  and  sentenced  the  appellant  to  undergo  rigorous

imprisonment  for a period  of four years on each count  with a

fine of Rs.500/- each with default clause.  Aggrieved by the

conviction, the appellant filed appeal before the High Court of

Delhi and vide impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed

the conviction of the appellant and also the sentence and the

fine imposed on him.  This appeal assails the correctness of

the same.  

7. We have heard Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija,  learned

Senior  Counsel  for  the  appellant,  who  submitted  that  the

initial  demand was not  proved by the  prosecution which is

evident from the self-contradictory version of the complainant

and  in  the  light  of  contradictory  statement  of  witnesses,

5

Page 6

recovery  has  become  highly  doubtful  and  the  courts  below

erred  in  convicting  the  appellant  for  the  alleged  receipt  of

illegal gratification.  The learned counsel  inter-alia submitted

that the occurrence was in the year 1996 and the appellant is

now aged seventy four years and prayed for leniency.  

8. Per  contra,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent

contended that the prosecution has proved the demand and

acceptance  of  the  illegal  gratification  by  the  appellant  and

upon appreciation of evidence, courts below rightly convicted

the  appellant  and  the  concurrent  findings  warrant  no

interference.

9. For  coming  to  the  finding  of  guilt  for  the  offence

under  Section  13(1)(d)  of  the  Act,  firstly,  there  must  be  a

demand and  secondly,  there must be acceptance in the sense

that  the  accused  received  illegal  gratification.  Courts  below

recorded  concurrent  findings  that  there  was  evidence  on

record to substantiate the fact that there was a demand and

the complainant paid the bribe amount to the appellant who

has  accepted  the  same.  Courts  below  also  recorded

6

Page 7

concurrent  findings that  there is  no reason to discredit  the

testimony  of  the  complainant  (PW4)  and  Inspector  of

Police-A.K. Kapoor (PW7).  Defence plea of the accused that

the  currency  notes  were  put  under  the  sofa  without  his

knowledge was rightly rejected by the courts below. Conviction

of the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with

Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is unassailable.

10. In this appeal,  notice was issued only limited to the

question of sentence.  The appellant was sentenced to undergo

rigorous  imprisonment  for  four  years  on  each  count  of

conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section

13(1)(d)  of the Act and the sentence imposed  was ordered to

run concurrently.  The incident had taken place in the year

1996 about  nineteen  years  ago  and for  all  these  years  the

appellant has undergone the agony of  criminal  proceedings.

Keeping  in view the passage of time and that the appellant is

now aged seventy four  years, in our view,  while upholding the

conviction of the appellant,  interest of justice would be met by

reducing  the sentence of  rigorous imprisonment of four years

7

Page 8

to one year rigorous imprisonment.  Application for exemption

from  surrendering  was  allowed  by  the  Chamber  Judge  on

20.09.2013, which was subsequently continued until further

orders  by  this  Court’s  order  dated  25.11.2013.   Necessary

steps be taken forthwith to take the appellant into custody to

serve  out  the  remaining  part  of  the  modified  sentence.

Judgment of the High Court is accordingly modified and this

appeal is allowed in part.   

……………………..J. (T.S. Thakur)

……………………..J.    (R. Banumathi)   

New Delhi; May 15, 2015    

8