Judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court rejecting the application filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence in terms of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code'). The stand of the appellant is that he had suffered more than 1 year and eight months' custody and therefore the sentence should be suspended. The High Court noted that earlier also a similar prayer was made which was rejected by order dated 18.9.2007.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he was only a peon who had no authority to issue any domicile certificate. Therefore the conviction should not have been recorded. In any event the sentences imposed for offence punishable under Sections 7 & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the ‘Act') are harsh. In such a case minimum sentence is six months but in the instant case three years imprisonment has been awarded.

4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the judgment.

5. Several decisions were cited at the bar.

6. In Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat [1999 (4) S