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