Corruption is a serious crime that undermines national character and wealth, and the discretion to suspend a sentence during appeal must be exercised judiciously.

.1. The menace of corruption has to be looked into proper perspective. Corruption cannot be considered as a trivial offence. When a Defence Inspector, responsible for approving the quality of components of tanks, armed carrier and other vehicles deployed during war time, turns corrupt and procure inferiors quality of components, the persons who die because of this corruption are the innocent soldiers who go to the war front fighting for the nation. When an inspector, responsible for removing squatters from the roads, turns corrupt and accepts bribe/hafta from the squatters, driving and walking on the roads becomes nightmare resulting into accidental deaths and loss of lives which could be saved had the person not been corrupt. When a

.health inspector, responsible for the checking of food adulteration or food being sold in open, turns corrupt and accepts bribe, the person who fell prey to his corruption are those poor persons who eat unhygienic food. When overloaded trucks go beyond control of drivers killing someone, you must be reminded of traffic inspector who turned corrupt and allowed to move the truck, when you find patients having died in hospital because of spurious drugs, you must feel the invisible hands of many involved in the supurious drug racket. When you find that the flat alloted to you has already been sold without your knowledge, you must remember a corrupt Babu in local development authority. When you find no action is taken against criminals despite FIRs, you must be reminded of corrupt police inspector. Tentacles of devil of corruption can be seen everywhere. It has crippled and reduced to naught many a schemes run for the benefit of poor, resulting into death by starvation and malnutrition of the downtrodden.

2. Prevention of Corruption Act was intended to curb this evil of corruption and bribe, but experience shows that corruption has increased manifold day in and day out and now India is considered one amongst the most corrupt nations. Supreme Court in State of M.P. And others v. Ram Singh 2000 SCC (Cri.) 886 observed as under: “8. Corruption in a civilized society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time, is sure to maliganise (sic) the polity of the country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as a plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable diseased is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence “ shaking of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society. “

.3. In the instant case, the appellant was a sanitary inspector, responsible for checking the food being sold in open. He visited the complainant, who was selling boiled eggs as squatter opposite Charat Palika Hospital Moti Bagh and demanded bribe. On a complaint lodged by complainant/squatter, he was caught red-handed accepting the bribe. Trial proceeded and he was convicted by the learned trial court under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, “the Act”) and under Section 13(2) read with

.Section 13(1) (d) of the Act and was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and fine under Section 7 and 3 years RI and fine under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act vide judgment dated 30th August and order of sentence dated 31st August, 2007.

4. This application has been preferred by the appellant for suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal. The counsel for the appellant argued that since the sentence awarded to the appellant was a fixed sentence, this Court shou