.
NEW DELHI: It took a trial court 16 years, Uttarakhand High Court six years and Supreme Court 14 years to decide a bribery case of Rs 500 involving an excise official. The case finally achieved closure with the SC upholding the man’s conviction and awarding one-year jail term. The matter started in June 1990 when the official was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs 500 and a case was registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A trial court convicted him in March 2006 and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2,000 for the offence under Section 13(2) of PC Act for criminal misconduct.
Citing 75 yrs of age, SC reduces ex-official’s jail term to 1 year The proceedings in HC were comparatively faster, and the case was decided in six years in April 2012.
Israel Iran War
HC rejected his appeal and upheld the trial court’s order on conviction and sentence. But the apex court took 14 years to decide his plea against conviction and sentence. His appeal was first heard in Aug 2012 and listed on 21 dates before different benches in the past 14 years. A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and P B Varale finally brought the curtain down on the case. Upholding his conviction, the bench said there was no error in the orders passed by the trial court and HC. But considering the man’s age of 75 years, the apex court reduced the sentence to one-year imprisonment, which is the minimum punishment under Section 13(2) of PC Act. “We are of the opinion that the trial court as well as high court, on appreciation of evidence, committed no error in holding the appellant guilty for the offences committed under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of PC Act. As such, the interference of this court insofar as conviction being recorded by the trial court and upheld by the high court is not warranted, but at the same time, considering the circumstances, namely, the appellant was of the age of approximately 40 years at the time of offence in question and now, he is approximately 75 years of age… we are of the opinion that the sentence awarded by the trial court and upheld by the high court can be modified to the extent of minimum sentence for the said offences,” the bench said in its order.
