V.K. VERMA versus CBI

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 1063 · Decided: 14-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 1 S.C.R. 1063 
V.K. VERMA 
v. 
CBI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 2014) 
FEBRUARY 14, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
SENTENCE/SENTENCING: 
A 
B 
c 
Reducing of sentence to a period less than the minimum 
prescribed -- Conviction u/ss. 5(1) (d) rlw s. 5(2) of 1947 Act 
ands. 161, /PC - Conviction and sentence of one and half 
years with fine - Held: Thirty years long delay in the 
proceedings, three months incarceration, age of accused with 
0 
ailments and the petty amount of bribe would be special 
reasons for reducing the substantive sentence -- Accordingly, 
sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already 
undergone and fine enhanced to Rs. 50, 0001- -- Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1947 -- ulss. 5(1) (d) rlw s. 5(2) - Penal Code, 
1860 - s. 161. 
E 
The appellant was prosecuted for offences 
punishable us 161, IPC and s. 5(1 )(d) read with s. 5(2) of 
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the ground that 
he demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.2651- from a 
F 
contractor on 21.12.1984. The trial court convicted him of 
the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo RI 
for one and a half years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- under 
each of the two counts. The High Court declined to 
interfere. 
G 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. As far as punishment under olds. 161 of 
1063 
H 
1064 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 
A IPC is concerned, there is no mandatory minimum 
punishment. Under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption 
Act, 1947, there is a mandatory minimum punishment of 
one year. It may extend to seven years. However, under 
the proviso, the court may, for special reasons, impose 
B a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year. [para 
9] [1066-G-H; 1067-A] 
1.2 The long delay before the courts in taking a final 
decision with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the 
accused, is one of the mitigating factors to decide on the 
C quantum of sentence. In the instant case, it is a litigation 
of almost three decades in a simple trap case and that 
too involving a petty amount. It took 10 years for the 
matter to be registered as a sessions case. The trial also 
took almost 10 years. The matter took further 10 years 
D before the High Court. The appellant has already 
undergone physical incarceration for three months and 
mental incarceration for about thirty years. Further, he is 
aged 76 and also has cardio vascular problems. This 
Court is of the view that the facts of the case would 
E certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive 
sentence. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of 
imprisonment is reduced to the period already 
undergone. However, fine is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 
F 
G 
H 
[para 4,11, 15 and 16] [1065-H; 1066-A; 1067-C-F] 
Ashok Kumar v. State (Delhi Administration) 1980 (2) 
SCR 863 = (1980) 2 SCC 282; Sharvan Kumar v. State of 
Uttar Pradesh, (1985) 3 SCC 658; and Ajab and others v. 
State of Maharashtra, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 601 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
1980 (2) SCR 863 
(1985) 3 sec 658 
relied on 
relied on 
para 12 
para 13 
V.K. VERMA v. CBI 
1065 
1989 Supp (1) SCC 601 relied on 
para 14 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 404 of 2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2013 of the 
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. A. No. 293 of 2003. 
B 
M. Yogesh Kanna, A. Santha Kumaran, Vanita C. Giri for 
the Appellant. 
P.P. Malhotra, ASG, P.K. Dey, Shadman Ali, B.V. Bairam 
Das for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Appellant is the accused in C.C. No. 205 of 1994 on 
c 
the file of the Special Judge, Delhi. He was tried for offences 
D 
under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) 
(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 5(1 )(d) read with 
Section 5(2)'of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The 
charge was that the appellant demanded and accepted bribe 
of Rs.265/- from a contractor by name Sanjeev Kumar 
E 
Sawhney on 21.12.1984. According to the appellant, the said 
contractor had an axe to grind since the appellant did not budge 
to his demand for improper measurement of the work done by 
him and he was actually trapped at his instance. FIR was 
registered on 21.12.1984. The sessions court convicted him 
of the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for a period of one and a half years with a fine 
of Rs.5,000/- each under the charged Sections, as per 
Judgm

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.