JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant (for brevity “the appellant”) against the judgment dated 18.04.1988 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur, Rajasthan (for brevity “the learned trial Court”) in Special Criminal Case No.6/1985 whereby, while convicting him under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”), he has been sentenced as under:-

(i). under Section 161 IPC:-1 year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-; in default thereof, 3 months’ simple imprisonment.

(ii). Under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947:-1 year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-; in default thereof, three months’ simple imprisonment.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that on a written compliant dated 31.10.1984 (Exhibit-P-1) filed by Shri Rajveer Singh, an FIR No.52/1984 (Exhibit-P-14) came to be registered against the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of Act of 1947 wherein, it was alleged that for subjecting the complainant to medical examination for his regular appointment in the North Western Railway, Kota, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.800/-towards the illegal gratification. As per the prosecution case, the appellant was caught red-handed on 01.11.1984 accepting a bribe of Rs.500/-. After investigation, the investigating agency filed charge-sheet against the appellant under the aforesaid provisions. Vide order dated 22.07.1985, the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of Act of 1947. After conducting trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits, at the threshold, that he does not press this criminal appeal on its merit. He, however, submits that since, the appellant is aged about 76 years and is facing trauma of this criminal case for last about 39 years, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence awarded to him be modified. He submits that while waiving the substantive sentence, the fine may be enhanced suitably and appropriately. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon following judgments of a Coordinate Bench of this Court:-

(i). Omendra Dutt Sharma versus The State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Appeal No.462/1985 decided on 15.02.2023.

(ii). Jangli Ram versus The State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Appeal No.336/1986 decided on 05.05.2023.

3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor did not seriously oppose the prayer in view of life of the case and advance age of the appellant.

4. Heard. Considered.

5. Their Lordships have held in the cases of, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0015/2012: (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. MANU/SC/1627/1998: (1998) 9 SCC 678 as under:-

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

"There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."

Haripada Das (Supra)

"...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."

6. A coordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Ramlal versus the State of Rajasthan, 1982 (7) Rajasthan Criminal Cases