IMPORTANT POINT
Sentence – Court can show compassion to reduce sentence by exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988¹[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] in Special Case No. 2 of 2011 vide judgment and order dated 23.11.2011 convicted accused No. 1 and accused No. 2, namely, A. Karunanithi and P. Karunanithi respectively under Section 13 and Section 7 of the Act. A-1 was awarded three years RI with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act and 2 years RI with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 7 of the Act and in the event of non-payment of fine with SI of 3 months each. Similarly, A-2 was awarded sentence of 1.5 years of RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act and 1 year RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 7 of the Act and in the event of default in payment of fine with SI of 3 months each.

4. The aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence was challenged by both the accused persons independently by separate appeals before the High Court. Both the appeals were decided by the High Court by a common judgment and order dated 05.12.2018 and were dismissed. Thus, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court was upheld.

5. The above common judgment and order passed by the High Court is under challenge in the present appeals.

6. A-1 was serving as Village Administrative Officer at Selvalur and A-2 was working as a Village Assistant in the same office. The complainant, V. Rengasamy (PW-2) had applied to the Tehsildar for a Community Certificate for the purposes of joining Government service. His application was returned with an endorsement to approach A-1 for a report. When the complainant approached A-1 on 09.11.2004, he allegedly demanded Rs. 500/- as a bribe for processing the papers. The complainant approached A-1 again on 27.11.2004 whereupon he reiterated his demand as aforesaid.

7. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Corruption Department with regard to demand of Rs. 500/- as a bribe by A-1. A trap was arranged on 03.12.2004 where currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and given to the complainant. After the trap was laid, the complainant approached A-1 again, whereupon he reiterated his demand for Rs. 500/- as bribe and instructed A-2 to collect the money. The complainant handed the marked currency notes to A-2 who counted the same and kept it, as directed by A-1. On the signal of the complainant, Police entered, seized the currency notes and conducted the phenolphthalein test on the hands of A-2 which turned pink, confirming contact with the pre-treated currency notes. The seized currency notes were sent for chemical analysis which confirmed that they contained phenolphthalein.

8. It was in this background, the criminal machinery was set into motion and an FIR Crime No. 8 of 2004 was registered under the Act. Upon investigation, a chargesheet was submitted on 29.06.2006 under Section 7 and Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act citing 11 witnesses. Thereafter, the trial commenced and both the accused were found guilty and sentenced, which judgment and order was affirmed by the High Court.

9. Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel for the appellants argued for the reduction of sentence to A-1 and for setting aside conviction of A-2. He submitted that the High Court failed to consider that the age of A-1 is 68 years and that h