SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi, JJ.
K.L. Bakolia — Appellant
versus
State Through Director, C.B.I. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 797 of 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.8161/2013)
Decided on : 15-05-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
Long drawn criminal proceedings and age of the accused may be factors to reduce sentence.

Headnote:(a) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7 and 13 – Ingredients of demand and acceptance of bribe satisfied – Conviction cannot be interfered with. (Para 9)

        (b) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7 and 13 – Incident about 19 years old – Appellant undergoing agony of criminal proceedings – Appellant now aged 74 years – Sentence reduced from 4 years to 1 year. (Para 10)

       Facts of the case:

        Shamsher Singh-complainant (PW4) is the sole proprietor of M/s. Colonel’s Security Services working on contract for providing security staff to Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Pusa, New Delhi on annual basis from 1.03.1993 which was subsequently renewed from year to year basis upto 31.03.1996 and the contract was due for renewal on 1.04.1996. Complainant stated that on 2.04.1996 when he contacted the appellant for renewal of his contract and payment of his outstanding dues, the appellant demanded Rs.50,000/-as a bribe for renewal of contract and when complainant stated that he was not in a position to pay Rs.50,000/-, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.20,000/-and the complainant was asked to meet the appellant on 3.04.1996 and pay the bribe amount.

        A trap was laid.

        Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years on each count with a fine of Rs.500/-each with default clause.

        The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant and also the sentence and the fine imposed on him.

       Finding of the Court:

        Sentence needs to be reduced in the interest of justice.

       Result : Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

R. Banumathi, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.207/2003 dated 11.7.2013, in and by which, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the sentence imposed on him.

3. Shamsher Singh-complainant (PW4) is the sole proprietor of M/s. Colonel’s Security Services working on contract for providing security staff to Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Pusa, New Delhi on annual basis from 1.03.1993 which was subsequently renewed from year to year basis upto 31.03.1996 and the contract was due for renewal on 1.04.1996. Complainant stated that on 2.04.1996 when he contacted the appellant for renewal of his contract and payment of his outstanding dues, the appellant demanded Rs.50,000/-as a bribe for renewal of contract and when complainant stated that he was not in a position to pay Rs.50,000/-, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.20,000/-and the complainant was asked to meet the appellant on 3.04.1996 and pay the bribe amount. Complainant was not interested in paying the bribe and on the same day he went to CBI office and narrated the facts. The complainant was asked to come on the next day with Rs.20,000/-by CBI officer. In the evening of 3.04.1996, the appellant rang up the complainant and inquired him as to why he did not contact him on the said date, for which, the complainant replied that he would come to the residence of the appellant on the next day between 1.00 to 2.00 p.m.

4. On 4.4.1996, the complainant visited CBI office and he was asked to submit his complaint in writing. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered in RC No.24(A)/96-CBI/ACB/N.Delhi under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Raiding party was constituted and pre-trap proceedings were conducted and Rs.20,000/-consisting of forty currency notes of rupees five hundred denomination each treated with phenolphthalein powder were given to complainant. As the complainant alone was supposed to go and contact the appellant, a two piece recorder consisting of recorder and mic-cum-transmitter along with audio cassette was put in the pocket of the complainant. A further direction was given to the complainant to give signal to the trap party by saying ‘Gin Leejiye’.

5. The complainant and the trap party went to Pusa Complex at about 1.45 p.m. The complainant after switching on the mic-cum-transmitter went inside the house of the appellant who welcomed him. The appellant inquired from the complainant ‘Laye Ho’ and the complainant replied in the affirmative. When complainant gave the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/-to the appellant, he raised the cushion of the sofa and asked the complainant to keep the money under the cushion of the sofa. As the complainant insisted that the money should be handed over in the hand, the complainant took the tainted money in his right hand and kept it under the cushion of his sofa. The complainant gave the signal ‘Gin Leejiye’ where after the CBI officials rushed into the drawing room of the appellant and questioned him about the bribe money and the appellant was perplexed and kept mum. On instructions from the officer, PW6 lifted the cushion of the sofa and the trap money was recovered. Wash of both the hands of the appellant in the sodium carbonate solution turned pink. Trap laying officer prepared the seizure memo and completed other formalities of trap proceedings. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’).

6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. Upon consideration of the evidence, learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top