Judgment

Kurian Joseph, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal has called for an analysis of the penological philosophy behind punishment for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act'). According to W. Friedmann, "The purpose of the penal law is to express a formal social condemnation of forbidden conduct, buttressed by sanctions calculated to prevent it. Implicit in this formulation are three questions, to which different societies give very different answers: First, what kind of conduct is 'forbidden'? Second, what kind of 'formal social condemnation' is considered appropriate to prevent such conduct? Third, what kind of sanctions are considered as best calculated to prevent officially outlawed conduct?" [Law in Changing Society, W. Friedmann, 2nd Edition, P. 191.]

3. By judgment dated 29.03.2008 of the learned Special Judge (CBI), Delhi in CC No. 194/2001, the Appellant was convicted for the offences Under Section7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and thereafter sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence Under Section 7 with a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 15,000/- Under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. There was a default sentence as well. The sentences were to run concurrently.

4. The allegation was that the Appellant, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, demanded a bribe of Rs. 25,000/- for releasing the nephew of thede-facto complainant. On such complaint of PW-5, the Anti-Corruption Branch of the CBI laid a successful trap on 13.01.2001 which led to the trial.

5. In appeal, the High Court of Delhi found that the conviction was fully justified. It was further held that "as regards the sentence, the Appellant was a Sub Inspector and entrusted with the task of law enforcement. In the circumstances, the punishment awarded by the trial Court cannot be said to be disproportionate. The sentence awarded to the Appellant by the trial Court is upheld", and hence the appeal.

6. Notice in the present case was limited to the quantum of sentence only. Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. It is submitted that in view of the ordeal of a long trial and taking note of the fact that the incident is of the year 2001, the punishment may be limited to the period already undergone. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on the other hand submitted that since the Appellant was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe in the case at the investigation stage and stressed on the fact that since the Appellant was Sub-Inspector of Police at the relevant time, if the punishment is reduced, it will give a wrong signal to the society.

7. In determining the quantum of sentence, the kind of forbidden conduct, the kind of social condemnation, the sanction prescribed in law, the object of punishment, the nature of crime, the status of the criminal, etc., are some of the relevant factors to be considered by the courts.

8. The Prevention of Corruption Act was first introduced in the year 1947 when "imperative need was felt to introduce a special legislation with a view to eradicate the evils of bribery and corruption". It was subsequently amended in 1952 and 1964. "To make the anti-corruption laws more effective by widening their coverage and by strengthening the provisions", the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was enacted. The Act was amended in the year 2014.

9. A few special legislations provide for mandatory minimum punishments and the Prevention of Corruption Act is one such statute. Prior to the amendment in 2014, the offence Under Section 7, the mandatory minimum punishment was six months which may be extended up to five years with fine. Section 13 of the PC Act provided for a mandatory punishment of minimum one year which may be extended to seven years with fine. Se