K.L. BAKOLIAversusSTATE THROUGH DIRECTOR, C.B.L~"V

                    [2015) 7 S.C.R. 201


                       K.L. BAKOLIA                           A
                             v.
           STATE THROUGH DIRECTOR, C.B.l~"v:
             (Criminal Appeal No. 797 of 2015) _
                                                              B
                       MAY 15, 2015
        [T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
                                           s.
        Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 7 ands. 13(2) rl
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 74 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 ofjustice- 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.
            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.
G
            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 he went to CBI office      F
  and narrated the facts. The complainant was asked to come
  on the next day with Rs.20,000/L by CBI officer. In the evening
  of 3.04.1996, the appellant rang up the complainant and
  inquired him as to why he did not contact him on the said date,
  for which, the complainant replied that he would come to the       G
  residence of the appellant on the next day between 1.00 to
                                                       0
  2.00p.m.                                           · '

       4. On 4.4.1996, the complainant visited CBJ pffice and
 he was asked to submit his complaint in writing. Based on the. H
204          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 7 S.C.R.


A complaint, FIR was registered in RC No.24(A}/96~CBl/ACB/
  N. Delhi under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
  1988. Raiding party was constituted and pre-trap proceedings
  were conducted and Rs.20,000/- consisting of forty currency
  notes of rupees five hundred denomination each treated with
B phenolphthalein powder were given to complainant. As the
  complainant alone was supposed to go and contact the
  appellant, a two piece recorder consisting of recorder and mic-
  cum-transmitter along with audio cassette was put in the pocket
  of the complainant. A further direction was given to the
C complainant to give signal to the trap party by saying 'Gin
  Leejiye'. -

              5. The complainant and the trap party went to Pusa
      Complex at about 1.45 p.m. The complainant after switching
D     on the mic-cum-transmitter went inside the house of the
      appellant who welcomed him. The appellant inquired from the
      complainant 'Laye Ho' and the complainant replied in the
      affirmative. When complainant gave the bribe amount of
      Rs.20,000/- to the appellant, he raised the cushion of the sofa
E     and asked the complainant to keep the money under the cushion
      of the sofa. As the complainant insisted thatthe money should
      be handed over in the hand, the complainant took the tainted
      money in his right hand and kept it under the cushion of his
F     sofa. The complainant gave the signal 'Gin Leejiye'where after
      the CBI officials rushed into the drawing room of the appellant
      and questioned him about the bribe money and the appellant
      was perplexed and kept mum. On instructions from the officer,
      PW6 lifted the cushion of the sofa and the trap money was
G     recovered .. Wash of both the hands of the appellant in the
      sodium carbonate solution turned· pink: Trap laying officer
      prepared the seizure memo and completed other formalities
      of trap proceedings. After completion of investigation,
      chargesheet was filed against the appellant under Section 7
H     and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d} of the Prevention
  K.L. BAKOLIA v. STATE THROUGH DIRECTOR, C.B.I.                205
                  [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').                   A

        6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has examined ten witnesses. Upon consideration
of the evidence, learned Special Judge convicted the appellant
under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1 )(d) B
of the Act and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of four years on each count with a
fine of Rs.500/- each with default clause. Aggrieved by the
conviction, the appellant filed appeal before the High Court of
Delhi and vide impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed C
the conviction of the appellant and also the sentence and the
fine imposed on him. This appeal assails the correctness of
the same.

        7. We have heard Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, learned D
Senior Counsel for the appellant, who submitted that the initial
demand was not proved by the prosecution which is evident
from the self-contradictory version of the complainant and in
the light of contradictory statement of witnesses, recovery has
become highly doubtful and the courts below erred in convicting E ·
the appellant for the alleged receipt of illegal gratification. The
learned counsel inter-alia submitted that the occurrence was
in the year 1996 and the appellant is now aged seventy four
                                                            .
years and prayed for leniency.
                                                                    F
        8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
contended that the prosecution has proved the demand and
acceptance of the illegal gratification by the appellant and upon
appreciation of evidence, courts below rightly convicted the
appellant and the concurrent findings warrant no interference. G

       9. For coming to the finding of guilt for the offeace under
Section 13(1 )(d) of the Act, firstly, there must be a demand
and secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that the
accused received illegal gratification. Courts below recorded H
                                ·.
206          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 7 S.C.R


A concurrent findings that there was evidence on record to
  substantiate the fact that there was a 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
B the complainant (PW4) and Inspector of Police-AK. Kapoor
  (PW7). Defence plea of the accused that the currency notes
  were put under the sofa without his knowledge was rightly
  rejected by the courts below. Conviction of the appellant under
  Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
C Act is unassailable.

              10. In this appeal, notice was issued only limited to the
      question of sentence. The appellant was sentenced to undergo
      rigorous imprisonment for four years on each count of conviction
D     under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1 )(d)
      of the Act and the sentence imposed was ordered to run
      concurrently. The incident had taken place in the year 1996
      about nineteen years ago and for all these years the appellant
      has undergone the agony of criminal proceedings. Keeping
E     in view the passage of time and that the appellant is now aged
      seventy four years, in our view, while upholding the conviction
      of the appellant, interest of justice would be met by reducing
      the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of four years to one
F     year rigorous imprisonment. Application for exemption from
      surrendering was allowed by the Chamber Judge on
      20.09.2013, which was.Rubsequently continued until further
      orders by this Court's order dated 25.11.2013. Necessary
      steps be taken forthwitt;i.to take the appellant into custody to
G     serve out the remaining part of the modified sentence.
      Judgment of the High Court is accordingly modified and this
      appeal is.allowed in part.

      Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                          Appeal partly allowed.

H