K.L. BAKOLIA versus STATE THROUGH DIRECTOR, C.B.L~"V

Citation: [2015] 7 S.C.R. 201 · Decided: 15-05-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 7 S.C.R. 201 
K.L. BAKOLIA 
v. 
STATE THROUGH DIRECTOR, C.B.l~"v: 
(Criminal Appeal No. 797 of 2015) _ 
MAY 15, 2015 
[T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s. 7 ands. 13(2) rl 
A 
B 
w s. 13(1 )(d)-Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification c 
- Conviction of accused-appellant -Justification - Held: In 
view of concurrent findings of the courts below that there was 
evidence to show that there was a demand and the 
complainant paid the bribe amount to the appellant who 
accepted the same, interference with the conviction order not D 
called for- However, since the incident took place 19 years 
ago and the appellant being 7 4 years old and having 
undergone the agony of criminal proceedings for all these 
years, sentence imposed upon him reduced from 4 years RI 
to 1 year RI in the interest of justice- Sentence I Sentencing. 
E 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. For coming to the finding of guilt for the 
offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of F 
Corruption Act, 1988, firstly, there must be a demand and 
secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that 
the accused received illegal gratification. Courts below 
recorded concurrent findings that there was evidence 
on record to substantiate the fact that there was a G 
demand and the complainant paid the bribe amount to 
the appellant who has accepted the same. Courts below 
also recorded concurrent findings that there is no reason 
to discredit the testimony of the complainant (PW4) and 
H 
201 
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A Inspector of Police (PW7). Defence plea of the accused 
that the currency notes were put under the sofa without 
his knowledge was rightlx rejected by the courts below. 
Conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and Section 
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of 
B Corruption Act, 1988 is unassailable. [Para 9] [205-H; 206-
A-C] 
,. 
2. In this appeal, notice was issued only limited to 
the question of sentence. The appellant was sentenced 
C to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years on 
each count of conviction under Section 7 and Section 
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 and the sentence imposed was 
ordered to run concurrently. The incident had taken 
D place in the year 1996 about nineteen years ago and for 
all these years the appellant has undergone the agony 
of criminal proceedings. Keeping in view the passage 
of time and that the appellant is now aged seventy four 
years, while upholding the conviction of the appellant, 
E interest of justice would be met by reducing the sentence 
of rigorous imprisonment of four years to one year 
rigorous imprisonment [Para 10) [206-D-E] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
F Appeal No. 797 of 2015. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2013 of the 
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Appeal No. 207 of 
2003. 
Vibha Datta Makhija, Suirender Kumar Gupta, Mayank 
Yada, Disha Singh for the Appellant. 
Dhruv Sheoram, M. Khairati, Kumar Parimal, B. V. 
H Bala ram Das for the Respondent. 
K.L. BAKOLIA v. STATE THROUGH DIRECTOR, C.B.I. 
203 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment 
passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal App,;-al No.207 / 8 
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 Sectinn 13(1 )(d) ofthe Prevention 
of Corruption Act, 1988 and the sentence imposed ·on him. 
3. Shamsher Singh-complainant (PW4) is. the sole C 
proprietor of Mis. 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 0 
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 hls contract 
and payment of his outstanding dues, the appellant demanded 
Rs.50,000/- as a bribe for renewal of contract and when E 
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 h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.