IMPORTANT POINT
Delay can be a ground for reduction of sentence.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants in these appeals were charged and tried by the Special Judge, Junagadh for offences under Sections 161 and 165(A) of Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2,500 each. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

3. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the appellants carried an appeal to the High Court.

4. By the impugned order, the High Court confirmed the conviction. However, the High Court reduced the sentence of appellant-Jujarsinh to six months and sentence of appellant-Gulmahmad to nine months.

5. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the appellants have approached this Court.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant pressed the appeal only on the ground of sentence. He submitted that the incident took place about 27 years back. Appellant-Jujarsinh was a Head Constable. Appellant Gulmahmad was an Armed Constable. They have lost their jobs. They suffer from several ailments and, therefore, the sentence undergone by them may be treated as sentence for the offence for which they are convicted and they may be released from custody.

7. The High Court in its judgment has noted that as on 16.9.2013, appellant-Jujarsinh was 75 years old. Considering this fact, the High Court has reduced his sentence to six months. So far as the appellant-Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall is concerned, the High Court noted that he has lost his job and retiral benefits and that he has three daughters. Considering these facts, his sentence was reduced to nine months.

8. The incident, in question, took place as back as on 29.6.1987. Almost 27 years have passed by. All these years, the appellants must have suffered tremendous mental trauma and anguish. The appellants have lost their jobs and all retiral benefits. The appellant Jujarsinh is, as of today, about 76 years old. We are informed by learned counsel for the appellant - Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall that Gulmahmad is suffering from gangrene and has undergone surgery. Both the appellants are in jail. We are informed by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have undergone about more than two months imprisonment.

9. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, therefore, we are of the opinion that the sentence undergone by them should be treated as substantive sentence for the offences for which they are convicted and fine imposed on them needs to be enhanced.

10. In this connection, we can usefully refer to the Judgment of this Court in V.K. Verma v. CB.I. (2014)3 SCC 485 in which in somewhat similar fact situation, this Court followed such a course.

11. Hence, the appeals are partly allowed.

12. The conviction of the appellants for offences punishable Sections 161 and 165(A) of Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is confirmed. The sentence undergone by them is treated as substantive sentence for the said offences. The sentence of fine is increased to the following extent:

13. Appellant Jujarsinh Ramsinh Thakar who was a head constable shall pay an amount of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as fine and appellant Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall who was only a constable shall pay an amount of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as fine. The appellants shall be released from custody only after ascertaining that they have paid the fine.

14. The appeals are disposed of in the aforestated terms.

Appeals Partly allowed.

**********