- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kiran Chander Asri v. State Of Haryana .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, a Block Development and Panchayat Officer in Haryana, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹2,000 from the Sarpanch of Mundlana Village in 1995. Following a trap arranged by the State Vigilance Bureau, he was arrested and an FIR was registered under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The Special Judge, Sonepat convicted him and imposed concurrent sentences of two years’ rigorous imprisonment with fines. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. The appellant approached the Supreme Court via special leave; notice was issued only on the question of the quantum of punishment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the admitted conviction, the sentence of two years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act should be reduced in the circumstances of the case.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The offence occurred in 1995 and litigation has persisted for twenty years.
- The appellant is elderly, suffers from various ailments, has lost his government job, and has already spent time in custody both pre-trial and post-conviction.
- The bribe amount involved was relatively small (₹2,000).
- The Court should impose the minimum sentence permissible under the PC Act as it stood prior to the 2014 amendment.
Respondent's Arguments
- The State supported the concurrent findings and sentences of the courts below and opposed any reduction.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court confined its inquiry to sentencing, expressly declining to revisit the findings of guilt. It noted the following factors in favour of leniency:
- The considerable lapse of time since the offence (two decades).
- The appellant’s advanced age and ill-health.
- The loss of employment already suffered.
The Court observed that at the time of the offence the statutory minimum sentences were six months (Section 7) and one year (Section 13), extendable to five and seven years respectively. Relying on Article 20 of the Constitution, the Bench held that the enhanced minima introduced by the 2014 amendment could not retrospectively apply. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors, it decided that reducing the custodial term from two years to one year would meet the ends of justice while maintaining deterrence.
Holding and Implications
Partly Allowed. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced from two years to one year under both Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. The fines imposed by the lower courts are affirmed. The appellant, if on bail, must surrender to serve the remainder of the modified sentence.
Implications: The decision provides no new precedent on substantive corruption law but illustrates the Court’s willingness to calibrate punishment where considerable delay, advanced age, and statutory minima prior to amendment militate in favour of leniency. The conviction itself remains untouched.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.— Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the final order dated 28-5-2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Kiran Chander Asri v. State of Haryana 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 4753 whereby the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and affirmed the order dated 4-6-2005 passed by the Special Judge, Sonepat in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1999 of 2005 by which the Special Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs 1000 under Section 7 and rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs 2000 under Section 13 of the PC Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, it is necessary to state the relevant facts in brief.
3. On 12-8-1978, the appellant joined as Lecturer in English in Education Department, Government of Haryana and was later selected as Block Development and Panchayat Officer and joined as such on 21-4-1993.
4. In the year 1995, the appellant was posted as Block Development and Panchayat Officer Mundlana. By letter dated 26-10-1994, the Director, Development and Panchayats, Haryana issued instructions to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Haryana that no auction of village fish ponds should be done without adequate advertisement and secondly, it should be done under the supervision of the Committee after following the due procedure of reserved price fixation by the Fisheries Department.
5. The Gram Panchayat of Mundlana Village passed a resolution for auction of fish ponds in the village and sent it for approval to the appellant, who fixed the auction for 15-3-1995. On that day, the appellant did not go to the village but deputed the Panchayat Officer, who auctioned only the panchayat land and refused to auction the fish ponds. Thereafter the auction of the fish ponds was fixed for 22-3-1995. On that day also due to the absence of the appellant, the auction could not take place. Thereafter when Ranbir Singh, the Sarpanch of the village (complainant) met the appellant, he demanded Rs 2000 as bribe to conduct the auction. The complainant, however, expressed his inability to pay the bribe amount. The appellant then negotiated the amount of bribe. On 22-3-1995, again the appellant did not go to Mundlana Village and postponed the auction for 6-4-1995 but at that time he clearly told the complainant that so long as the bribe money is not paid to him, the auction would not be held.
6. On 4-4-1995, the Sarpanch filed an application to the SP, State Vigilance Bureau (in short “SVB”), Karnal stating therein the aforesaid facts. On receipt of the application, Mr M.S. Ahlawat, the then SP, SVB, Karnal (in short “the investigating officer”) wrote a letter to the Government seeking permission to arrange the raid. On 6-4-1995, he got the permission from the Government to carry out the raid. Thereafter he wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat to depute one Gazetted Officer for being joined in the raiding party. As per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Mr Ram Mehar, Xen, Irrigation joined the raiding party.
7. On 7-4-1995, the raiding party went to the office of the appellant. Hari Chand, the Inspector was deputed as a shadow witness and instructed to give a fixed signal by moving his hand over the head after the acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant. The Sarpanch, the complainant and shadow witness went to the office of the appellant and after 10 minutes, the shadow witness passed the signal upon which the raiding party went inside the office of the appellant and saw him putting something in the drawer. The investigating officer gave his introduction to the appellant, who after some persuasion opened the drawer and took out the bribe money and handed over the same to the investigating officer. After that, the appellant was taken into custody.
8. On that basis FIR No. 11 dated 7-4-1995 was registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Karnal against the appellant under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.
9. After completion of the investigation, challan was submitted against the appellant before the Special Court to face the trial. The prosecution examined ten witnesses and in defence, the appellant examined three witnesses.
10. Vide order dated 4-6-2005 the Special Judge, Sonepat in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1999/2005 convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs 1000 under Section 7 and rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs 2000 under Section 13 of the PC Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. It was held that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of bribe money of Rs 2000 by the appellant.
11. Challenging the order of conviction and sentence, the appellant filed an appeal being No. CRA-S-1070-SB of 2005 before the High Court. By the judgment dated 28-5-2015 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 4753, the learned Single Judge of the High Court concurred with the findings of the Special Judge and finding no merit, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Special Judge.
12. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant-accused has filed this appeal by way of special leave.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that by order dated 27-7-2015 SLP (Cri) No. 5747 of 2015 this Court issued notice to the respondent only on the question of quantum of punishment awarded to the appellant.
14. In the light of the order dated 27-7-2015 SLP (Cri) No. 5747 of 2015, the only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, any case is made out by the appellant to call for any interference in the quantum of punishment awarded to him by the two courts below and if so, to what extent.
15. In view of this limited question, it is not necessary for this Court to examine the merits of the case insofar as it relates to the issues, which resulted in the appellant's conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant, confining his submission to the quantum of punishment, submitted that keeping in view the fact that this litigation is pending for the last 20 years because the incident is of the year 1995 (7-4-1995), secondly, the appellant is now quite old and is suffering from various ailments, and further he has lost his job and also undergone few months in jail as undertrial and again few days after conviction, and lastly looking to the small amount of bribe involved (Rs 2000), this Court should take some lenient view in awarding lesser punishment and reduce it to minimum as prescribed in Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act prior to the amendment in these sections. It is more so as the learned counsel submits when this Court has now finally upheld the appellant's conviction.
17. In contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order.
18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in part.
19. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, such as firstly, the incident is of 1995; secondly, this litigation is pending for the last 20 years; thirdly, the appellant is now quite old and suffering with ailments; fourthly, he has already lost his job, we consider it just and proper, in peculiar facts of this case, to reduce the punishment awarded to the appellant from two years to that of one year.
20. Since at the relevant time when the offence was committed by the appellant, the minimum punishment prescribed in Sections 7 and 13 was six months and one year respectively, which may extend to five years and seven years respectively hence this Court can reduce the punishment of 2 years awarded to the appellant to one year notwithstanding the amendment made in Sections 7 and 13 by Act 1 of 2014 (w.e.f. 16-1-2014) which, in our view, will not apply to the case of the appellant in the light of Article 20 of the Constitution of India.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. Impugned order 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 4753 is modified to the extent that the appellant is awarded one year punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. So far as the fine amount imposed by the courts below is concerned, it is upheld. If the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled and he be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining period of sentence awarded by this Court.
Alert