M.C. GUPTAversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEHRADUN

                     [2012] 7 S.C.R. 455


                          M.C. GUPTA                                 A
                                v.
  CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEHRADUN
       (Criminal Appeal No. 1332 of 2012 etc.)
                      AUGUST 31, 2012
                                                                     B
 [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]

     PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988:

      s. 30(2) of 1988 Act read with s. 6 of General Clauses Act,    c
1897 - Saving of investigation under the repealed Act -
Offence committed while 1947 Act was in force - FIR
registered for offences punishable under the 1947 Act, after
coming into force of the 1988 Act - Conviction and sentence
upheld by High Court - Held: By virtue of s.30(2) of the 1988        0
Act, read with ss. 6(c) and 6(e) of the General Clauses
Act, 1897, the right of C.B./. to investigate the crime, institute
the proceedings and prosecute the accused is saved and not
affected by the repeal of the 1947 Act. - Thus, the right to
investigate and the corresponding liability incurred are saved       E
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - ss.5(1) and 5(2) - Penal
Code, 1860 - ss. 120-B and 409-Constitution of India, 1950-
Art. 20.

    PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947:
                                                                     F
     ss.5(2) read with 5(1)(e) of 1947 Act and ss.120-8 and
409 /PC - Conviction and sentence - Held: The guilt of the
accused is clearly established and, therefore, no interference
with the order of conviction is necessary - However, keeping
in view the old age and ailments A-1 is suffering from, his          G
sentence of 2 years' RI u!s 409 /PC is reduced to one year's
RI - Rest of the sentences awarded to him and the other
accused are maintained-Sentence/sentencing.

                              455                                    H
    456      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A      The appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 1332 of 2012 (A-1 ),
  while working as Assistant Divisional Manager, New India
  Assurance Company Ltd., got a bank draft of Rs.1,00,000/
  - prepared on 9.7.1988 from the Company's account in
  favour of a Dal Mill owned by his relative, namely, the
B appellant in Crl. Appeal No, 1333 of 2012(A-2). A-1 then
  collected the said bank draft and sent it to A-2 who
  deposited the same in the account of his Dal Mill on
  14.7.1988. An FIR for offence u/s 5(2) read with s.5(1)(c)
  of the Prevention of Corrupt Act, 1947 was registered on
c 19.2.1990 against both the accused. The trial court
  convicted and sentenced A-1 to 2 years RI u/s 409 IPC
  and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. He was further convicted
  u/s 120-B, IPC as also u/s 5(2) read withs. 5(1)(c) of the
  1947 Act and sentenced to one year's RI and a fine of
  Rs.1,000/ .. under each of the two counts. A-2 was
0
  convicted u/s 120-B IPC, s. 409 IPC and s. 5(2) read with
  s.5(1)(c) of the 1947 Act and s. 120-B IPC and was
  sentenced to one year's RI and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under
  each of the three counts.

E       In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was
    primarily contended for the appellants that the 1947 Act
    stood repealed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
    and, therefore, the FIR under the 1947 Act could not have
    been lodged on 19.2.1990.
F
          Disposing of the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. Sub-s. (2) of s. 30 of the Prevention of
  Corruption Act, 1988 (New Act) says that anything done
G or any action taken or purported to have been done or
  taken under or in pursuance of the repealed Acts in so
  far as it is not inconsistent with the New Act, shall be
  deemed to have been done or taken in pursuance of the
  New Act. Thus, a deeming fiction is introduced so far as
H action taken under the repealed Act is concerned. [para
  9] [464-A-B]
M.C. GUPTA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 457
                   DEHRADUN
      Bansidhar & Ors. V. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 1989 (2)    A
SCR 152 = (1989) 2 SCC 557; and 1.T. Commissioner v.
Shah Sadiq & Sons 1987 (2) SCR 942 = (1987) 3 SCC 516
- relied on

     1.2 Sub-s. (2) of s.30, further, keeps the application     8
of s.6 of the GC Act intact and if a situation is not covered
by s.30, resort to s.6 of the GC Act is open. Assuming that
the proceedings under the Act of 1947 initiated against
the appellants cannot be saved by s.30(2) of the New Act
because no action was taken pursuant to the Act of 1947,        c
prior to coming into force of the New Act, saving clause
contained in s.30 is not exhaustive. Section 6 of the GC
Act can still save the proceedings. Therefore, clauses (c)
and (e) of s.6 of the GC Act become relevant for the
instant case. [para 10, 12-13] [464-C; 466-B-C]                 0
     1.3 Clause (c) of s.6 of the GC Act says that if any
Central Act repeals any enactment, the repeal shall not
affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired,
accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. In
the instant case, the right which had accrued to the E
investigating agency to investigate the crime which took
place prior to the coming into force of the New Act and
which was covered by the Act of 1947, remained
unaffected by reason of clause (c) of s. 6. Clause (e) says
that the repeal shall not affect any investigation, legal F
proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right,
privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or
punishment and s. 6 further states that any such
investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be
instituted, continued or enforced and such penalty, G
forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the
repealing Act had not been passed. Therefore, the right
of C.B.I. to investigate the crime, institute proceedings
and prosecute the appellants is saved and not affected
                                                                H
    458      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012] 7 S.C.R.

A by the repeal of Act of 1947. Thus, the right to investigate
  and the corresponding liability incurred are saved. [para
  13] [466-C-G]

       1.4 Further, s. 6 of the GC Act qualifies the effect of
8 repeal stated in sub-clauses (a) to (e) by the words
  'unless a different intention appears'. No different
  intention is disclosed in the provisions of the New Act to
  hold that repeal of the Act of 1947 affects the right of the
  investigating agency to investigate offences which are
c covered by the Act of 1947 or that it prevents the
  investigating agency from proceeding with the
  investigation and prosecuting the accused for offences
  under the Act of 1947. Therefore, the repeal of the Act of
  1947 does not vitiate or invalidate the criminal case
0 instituted against the appellants and the consequent
  conviction of the appellants for offences under the
  provisions of the Act of 1947. [para 13] [466-G-H; 467-A-
  B]

      1.5 It cannot be said that the appellants could not
E have been charged under the provisions of the Act of
  1947 after its repeal. The offence is alleged to have been
  committed prior to the coming into force of the New Act.
  When the offence was committed, the Act of 1947 was in
  force. It is elementary that no person shall be convicted
F of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the
  time of commission of the act charged as an offence nor
  can he be subjected to a penalty greater than that which
  might have been inflicted under the law in force at the
  time of the commission of the offence. Art. 20(1) of the
G Constitution of India is clear on this point. The appellants
  were, therefore, rightly charged, tried and convicted under
  the provisions of the Act of 1947. [para 14] [467-C-E]

          2.1 So far as the merits of the case are concerned,
H
M.C. GUPTA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 459
                   DEHRADUN

the guilt of the appellants is clearly established and,         A
therefore, no interference is necessary with the impugned
judgment of the High Court which has confirmed the
conviction and sentence of the appellants. [para 15] [467 -
F-G]
                                                                B
     2.2 As regards the quantum of sentence, so far as
appellant A-1 is concerned, he is about 70 years old and
is stated to be suffering from various ailments. The crime
in question took place about 24 years ago. In the
circumstances, his sentence of two years' RI u/s 409 IPC        c
is reduced to one year's RI. Rest of the sentences
awarded to him and the other appellant, who was the
beneficiary of the dishonest and fraudulent
misappropriation of the company's money, shall remain
intact. [para 16 and 18] [467-G; 468-D-E]                       o
    Satpal Kapoor etc. v. State of Punjab etc. 1996 (11 ) SCC
769; and Shiv Nandan Dixit v. State of U.P. 2003 (12) SCC
636 - referred to.
                     Case Law Reference:                        E
       1996 (11) sec 769       referred to         para 8
       2003 (12) sec 636       referred to         para 8
       1989 (2) SCR 152        relied on           para 11      F
       1987 (2) SCR 942        relied on           para 11
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1332 of 2012.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 27.03.2012 of the High      G
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 133/
2006 (old No. CRLA. No. 2770/1999)
                               WITH
SLP (Crl.) No. 5908 of 2012.                                    H
    460      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A       Amarendra Sharan, S.K. Agrawal, S.K. Dubey, Apoorva
    Agrawal, Mushtaq Ahmad, Abhay Gupta, Yogesh Tiwari, Rahul
    Kaushik for the Appellant.

       A.S. Chandhiok, ASG, Rajiv Nanda, Baldev Atreya, Arvind
B   Kumar Sharma for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. 1. Leave
    granted.
c        2. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against
    the judgment and order dated 27/03/2012 delivered by the
    Uttarakhand High Court confirming the judgment and order of
    conviction and sentence dated 08/10/1999 I 25/10/1999
D   passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, U.P. (East),
    Dehradun in C.B.I. Case No.3/90, whereby the Special Judge
    convicted the appellants, inter alia, under the provisions of the
    Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, "Act of 1947").

         3. It is necessary to narrate the facts of the case. Appellant
E   M.C. Gupta was posted as Assistant Divisional Manager, New
    India Assurance Company Limited (for short, "the Company").
    He was authorized by the Company to operate its Account
    No.314 held with the Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines,
    Moradabad. Appellant Mohan Lal Gupta was the proprietor of
F   M/s. Mohan Dal Mill. Account No.SSl/53 was held in the name
    of M/s. Mohan Dal Mill with State Bank of India, Orai, District
    Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh.

       4. On 09/07/1988, appellant M.C. Gupta issued cheque
  No.QDE-800186 in the sum of Rs.1,00,200/- from the account
G of the Company and asked the bank to prepare a draft of
  Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of Mis. Mohan Dal Mill. Appellant M.C.
  Gupta himself prepared the draft application dated 09/07/1988.
  The bank, accordingly, prepared a draft of Rs.1,00,000/- on the
  same date and debited the amount of cheque from the account
H
M.C. GUPTA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 461
     DEHRADUN [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
of the Company. Appellant M.C. Gupta himself collected the           A
said draft from the bank and sent it to his relative appellant -
Mohan Lal Gupta at Orai, who deposited the same on 14/07/
1988 in the aforementioned account of M/s. Mohan Dal Mill
vide pay-in-slip dated 14/07/1988. Thus, appellant M.C. Gupta,
in collusion with appellant Mohan Lal Gupta, dishonestly and         B
fraudulently misappropriated the Company's money, which is
public money, for wrongful gain to appellant Mohan Lal Gupta,
thereby causing corresponding losses to the Company.

      5. When the siphoning off of money came to light, a FIR        C
was lodged on 19/02/1990 under Section 5(2) read with Section
5(1 )(c) of the Act of 1947. After investigation, C.B.I. submitted
charge-sheet against both the appellants before the Special
Judge. After perusing the evidence, the Special Judge
convicted and sentenced appellant M.C. Gupta to RI for one year
and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 120-B of the      D
IPC. He was also sentenced to RI for two years and a fine of
Rs.2,000/- for offence under Section 409 of the IPC. In addition,
he was sentenced to RI for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-
under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1 )(c) of the Act of 1947.
Appellant Mohan Lal Gupta was sentenced to RI for one year           E
and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 120-B of the
IPC. He was also sentenced to RI for one year and a fine of
Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 409 of the IPC. He was
also sentenced to RI for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for
offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1 )(c) of the Act     F
of 1947 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. All sentences were
to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, the appellants
were to undergo imprisonment for six months.

    6. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and                G
sentence, both the appellants filed separate appeals to the High
Court. As we have already noted, by the impugned order, the
appeals were dismissed by the High Court and, hence, the
present appeals.

     7. The basic submission of Mr. Amarendra Sharan and Mr.         H
    462     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 7 S.C.R.

A S.K. Dubey, learned senior counsel for the appellants is based
  on the fact that the Act of 1947 stood repealed by the
  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the New Act").
  The alleged crime took place between 9/7/1988 and 14/07/
  1988 and FIR was lodged in respect of the same on 19/02/
B 1990 alleging offences under the Act of 1947. Counsel
  submitted that FIR could not have been lodged for the offences
  punishable under the Act of 1947, which stood repealed by the
  New Act. It was urged that in fact, by reason of repeal,
  proceedings under the Act of 1947 stand obliterated. In this
c connection, our attention was drawn to Section 30 of the New
  Act. Sub-section 1 of Section 2 thereof provides for repeal and
  saving. It states that the Act of 1947 stands repealed. It was
  pointed out that Sub-section 2 of Section 30 of the New Act
  states that notwithstanding such repeal, but without prejudice
0 to the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
  (for short, "the GC Act"), anything done or any action taken or
  purported to have been done or taken under or in pursuance
  of the Acts so repealed shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent
  with the provisions of the New Act be deemed to have been
E done or taken under or in pursuance of the corresponding
  provisions of the New Act.

       8. Counsel pointed out that nothing was done or no action
  was taken in pursuance of the Act of 1947 and, therefore, there
  was no question of coming to a conclusion that any action taken
F could be deemed to have been taken under the provisions of
  the New Act. Since no action was taken under the Act of 1947,
  there was no question of saving it. Counsel also drew our
  attention to Section 6 of the GC Act which speaks about the
  effect of repeal. Counsel submitted that the instant case is not
G covered by any of the sub-clauses of Section 6 of the GC Act
  so as to come to a conclusion that any investigation, legal
  proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced
  or any penalty or punishment may be imposed as if the
  repealing Act had not been passed. Counsel submitted that,
H in the circumstances, the entire prosecution is vitiated and,
 M.C. GUPTA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 463
      DEHRADUN [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]

hence, it is necessary for this Court to quash the proceedings A
and set the appellants free. Alternatively, counsel submitted that
since the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was repaid by the appellants
before 19/02/1990 i.e. even before the FIR was lodged, this
Court should reduce the sentence of the appellants to the
sentence already undergone by them. In support of this B
submission, counsel relied on Satpal Kapoor etc. v. State of
Punjab etc. 1 and Shiv Nandan Dix it v. State of U. P. 2 . Mr.
Chandhiok, learned Additional Solicitor General, for the C.B.I.
supported the impugned judgment.

     9. We are unable to accept the submissions of learned
                                                                      c
counsel for the appellants. It is true that according to the
prosecution, the alleged offence took place between 9/7/1988
and 14/7/1988. The New Act came into force on 9/9/1988. The
FIR was registered against the appellants, inter alia, for offences
                                                                      0
punishable under the Act of 1947. Charges were framed against
the appellants, inter alia, under the provisions of the Act of 1947
and the appellants were tried and convicted as aforesaid. Since
the repeal of Act of 1947 is the major plank of the appellants'
submissions, it is necessary to quote Section 30 of the New
Act which repealed the Act of 1947. It reads thus:                    E

      "30. Repeal and saving:- (1) The Prevention of Corruption
      Act, 1947 (2 of 1947) and the Criminal Law Amendment
      Act, 1952 (46 of 1952) are hereby repealed.
                                                                      F
            (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, but without prejudice
      to the application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act,
      1897 (10 of 1897), anything done or any action taken or
      purported to have been done or taken under or in
      pursuance of the Acts so repealed shall, in so far as it is
      not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed     G
      to have been done or taken under or in pursuance of the
      corresponding provision of this Act."

1.   (1996) 11 sec 769.
2.   (2003) 12 sec 636.                                               H
    464          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A      Sub-section 1 of Section 30 makes it clear that the Act of
  1947 has been repealed. Sub-section 2 of Section 30 of the
  New Act says that anything done or any action taken or
  purported to have been done or taken under or in pursuance
  of the repealed Acts in so far as it is not inconsistent with the
B New Act, shall be deemed to have been done or taken in
  pursuance of the New Act. Thus, a deeming fiction is introduced
  so far as action taken under the repealed Act is concerned.

       10. Sub-section 2 of Section 30 keeps the application of
  Section 6 of the GC Act intact and if a situation is not covered
C by Section 30, resort to Section 6 of the GC Act is open.
  Section 6 of the GC Act reads thus:

          "6. Effect of repeal:- Where this Act, or any Central Act or
          Regulation made after the commencement of this Act,
D         repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be
          made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal
          shall not -

           (a)     revive anything not in force or existing at the time
                   at which the repeal takes effect; or
E
           (b)     affect the previous operation of any enactment so
                   repealed or anything duly done or suffered
                   thereunder; or

F          (c)     affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability
                   acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment
                   so repealed; or

           (d)     affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred
                   in respect of any offence committed against any
G                  enactment so repealed; or

           (e)     affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy
                   in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation,
                   liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as
H                  aforesaid,
M.C. GUPTA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 465
     DEHRADUN [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may            A
be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty,
forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing
Act or Regulation had not been passed."

      11. In this connection, we may usefully refer to the decision   B
of this court in Bansidhar & Ors. V. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 3
where this court was dealing with the question whether the
proceedings for fixation of ceiling area with reference to the
appointed date i.e. 1/4/1966 under Chapter 111-B of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 could be initiated and continued
after coming into force of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling        C
on Agricultural Holdings Act which with effect from 1/1/1973
repealed Section 5(6-A) and Chapter 111-B of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955. While dealing with this question, this court
observed that when there is a repeal of a statute accompanied
by re-enactment of a law on the same subject, the provisions          D
of the new enactment would have to be looked into not for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the consequences envisaged
by Section 6 of the GC Act ensued or not - but only for the
purpose of determining whether the provisions in the new
statute indicate a different intention. This court further observed   E
that a saving provision in a repealing statute is not exhaustive
of the rights and obligations so saved or the rights that survive
the repeal. This court quoted a paragraph from its judgment in
I. T. Commissioner v. Shah Sadiq & Sons4 : (SCC p.524, para
15). It reads thus:                                                   F

      " ... In other words whatever rights are expressly saved by
      the 'savings' provision stand saved. But, that does not
      mean that rights which are not saved by the 'savings'
      provision are extinguished or stand ipso facto terminated       G
      by the mere fact that a new statute repealing the old statute
      is enacted. Rights which have accrued are saved unless
      they are taken away expressly. This is the principle behind

3.   (1989) 2 sec 557.
4.   (1987) 3 sec 516.                                                H
    466      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2012] 7 S.C.R.


A         Section 6(c), General Clauses Act, 1897.... "

          12. Thus assuming the proceedings under the Act of 1947
    initiated against the appellants cannot be saved by Section
    30(2) of the New Act because no action was taken pursuant to
    the Act of 194 7, prior to coming into force of the New Act,
8
    saving clause contained in Section 30 is not exhaustive.
    Section 6 of the GC Act can still save the proceedings.

          13. Viewed from this angle, clauses (c) and (e) of Section
    6 of the GC Act become relevant for the present case. Sub-
C   clause (c) says that if any Central Act repeals any enactment,
    the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or
    liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so
    repealed. In this case, the right which had accrued to the
    investigating agency to investigate the crime which took place
D   prior to the coming into force of the New Act and which was
    covered by the Act of 1947 remained, unaffected by reason of
    clause (c) of Section 6. Clause (e) says that the repeal shall
    not affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in
    respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty,
E   forfeiture or punishment and Section 6 further states that any
    such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be
    instituted, continued or enforced and such penalty, forfeiture or
    punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act had not
    been passed. Therefore, the right of C.B.I. to investigate the
F   crime, institute proceedings and prosecute the appellants is
    saved and not affected by the repeal of Act of 1947. That is to
    say, the right to investigate and the corresponding liability
    incurred are saved. Section 6 of the GC Act qualifies the effect
    of repeal stated in sub-clauses (a) to (e) by the words 'unless
G   a different intention appears'. Different intention must appear
    in the repealing Act (See Bansidhar). If the repealing Act
    discloses a different intention, the repeal shall not result in
    situations stated in sub-clauses (a) to (e). No different intention
    is disclosed in the provisions of the New Act to hold that repeal
    of the Act of 1947 affects the right of the investigating agency
H
M.C. GUPTA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 467
     DEHRADUN [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]

to investigate offences which are covered by the Act of 1947         A
or that it prevents the investigating agency from proceeding with
the investigation and prosecuting the accused for offences
under the Act of 1947. In our opinion, therefore, the repeal of
the Act of 1947 does not vitiate or invalidate the criminal case
instituted against the appellants and the consequent conviction      B
of the appellants for offences under the provisions of the Act
of 1947.

     14. There is no substance in the contention that the
appellants could not have been charged under the provisions          C
of the Act of 1947 after its repeal. As we have already noted,
the offence is alleged to have been committed prior to the
coming into force of the New Act. When the offence was
committed, the Act of 1947 was in force. It is elementary that
no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation
of a law in force at the time of commission of the act charged       D
as an offence nor can he be subjected to a penalty greater than
thatwhich might have been inflicted under the law in force at
the time of the commission of the offence. Article 20(1) of the
Constitution of India is clear on this point. The appellants were,
therefore, rightly charged, tried and convicted under the            E
provisions of the Act of 1947. We may also note that the
provisions of the New Act are more stringent than the provisions
of the Act of 1947. The appellants cannot, therefore, be said
to have been prejudiced.
                                                                     F
     15. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, in our
opinion, the guilt of the appellants is clearly established and,
hence, no interference is necessary with the impugned
judgment of the High Court which has confirmed the conviction
and sentence of the appellants.
                                                                     G
     16. That takes us to the arguments on quantum of
sentence. In Satpal Kapoor, the appellant therein was charged,
inter alia, under Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947. He was an
angina patient, suffering from coronary disea~es requiring
medical attention. He was 60 years of age. Considering these         H
    468      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012) 7 S.C.R.


A facts, his sentence was reduced to four months' simple
  imprisonment.

        17. In Shiv Nandan Dixit, the appellants therein were
  charged, inter alia, under Section 5(1 )(c) read with Section 5(2)
  of the Act of 1947. While considering the quantum of sentence,
8
  this court took into account the fact that the incident had taken
  place nearly 23 years ago. Considering the fact that the
  appellants therein had lost their jobs and retiral benefits; that
  the prolonged litigation had caused considerable loss to them
C and that they had crossed 60 years of age, this court reduced
  the sentence of one year RI to a period of six months' RI.

       18. In this case, so far as appellant M.C. Gupta is
  concerned, he is about 70 years' old and is stated to be
  suffering from various ailments. The crime in question took
D place about 24 years ago. In the circumstances, we are of the
  opinion that his sentence of two years' RI for offence under
  Section 409 of the IPC should be reduced to one year's RI and
  is accordingly reduced. Rest of the sentences awarded to him
  shall remain intact. So far as appellant Mohan Lal Gupta is
E concerned, he has been sentenced to one year's RI for offence
  under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Act of 1947.
  Considering the fact that he was the beneficiary of the dishonest
  and fraudulent misappropriation of the Company's money, we
  are not inclined to reduce his sentence. We clarify that the
F sentence of fine imposed on both the appellants is confirmed.
  The appeals are disposed of in the aforestated terms.

   R.P.                                     Appeals disposed of.