In cases involving elderly defendants, courts may set aside substantive sentences and enhance fines instead of imposing imprisonment, considering the prolonged legal proceedings and the nature of the offence.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant (for brevity "the appellant") against the judgment dated 30.04.1988 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Kota (for brevity "the learned trial Court") in Misc. Criminal Suit No.1/1984 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. 100/-; in default whereof, 1 month's rigorous 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. 100/-; in default whereof, 1 month's rigorous imprisonment.

2. Both the sentences to run concurrently.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that on a written compliant dated 02.03.1983 (Exhibit-P-1) filed by Shri. Narendra Prakash Pancholi-an auto rickshaw driver, an FIR No.20/1983 came to be registered 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 the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 10/- for not registering a complaint against him of traffic violation committed on 01.03.1983. As per the prosecution case, the appellant was caught red-handed on 02.03.1983 accepting the aforesaid bribe. After investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed under the aforesaid provision. 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 trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although, the demand is not corroborated by any evidence and from the testimony of the independent witnesses to the trap proceeding/recovery, i.e., S/Shri. Yogendra Kumar Jain (PW-2) and Ram Meena (PW-3), it is apparent that neither did they witness the complainant paying bribe to the appellant nor, they heard the conversation which took place in between them at that time; however, eschewing merits of the case, in view of the fact that the appellant is aged about 72 years and is facing trauma of this criminal case for last about 41 years, he would feel contended if while maintaining the conviction, the sentence awarded to him is modified in terms that while waiving the substantive sentence, the fine may be enhanced suitably and appropriately. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon a judgment of this Court dated 26.07.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.171/1988: Kishan Singh v. The State through S.P.E. (C.B.I.).

5. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

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

7. Heard. Considered.

8. This Court has, in the case of Kishan Singh (supra) partly allowed the appeal involving identical facts taking into consideration the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 and a co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ramlal v. the State of Rajasthan, 1982 (7) RCC 120 wherein, it was held as under:

"In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused appellant both under Section 161 IPC and 5 (1) (d) read with 6 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act are set aside. The accused appellant is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 600/- under section 161 IPC and also to a fine of Rs. 600/- under Section 5/(1) (d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months each in default of payment of fine on both the counts. Two month's time is allowed to