1 2025:CGHC:43608 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 338 of 2017 1 - Balram Sahu S/o Shri B.R. Sahu Aged About 48 Years Assistant Sub- Inspector Police Station Baki Mogra District Korba, R/o Village Kuli, Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Andherious Tirky (Dead) Through His Legal Heirs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 13-07-2022 2.1 - Gaimani Tirkey W/o Late Andherious Tirkey Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Kirkeela, P.S. Kasabel, District Jashpur (C.G.) 2.2 - Sushil Tirkey S/o Late Andherious Tirkey Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Kirkeela, P.S. Kasabel, District Jashpur (C.G.) 2.3 - Sunil Tirkey S/o Late Andherious Tirkey Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Kirkeela, P.S. Kasabel, District Jashpur (C.G.) 2.4 - Renu Tirkey D/o Late Andherious Tirkey Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kirkeela, P.S. Kasabel, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau/ Anti Corruption Bureau, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava and Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 28.08.2025 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) arising out of the judgment dated 16.02.2017 passed by learned Special Judge (P.C. Act), Korba (C.G.) in Special (P.C.) Case No. 02/2014, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Appellants Conviction Sentence Balram Sahu U/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 U/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 R.I. for 04 years with fine 10,000/- in default R.I. for 6 months. R.I. for 4 years with fine 10,000/- in default R.I. for 06 months Andherious Tirky U/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 R.I. for 4 years with fine 10,000/- in default R.I. for 06 months All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Panna Lal is a resident of village Jethu Dafaai, Korba. Dharmendra Chaudhary and his wife Rani live in his neighborhood, with whom he frequently had disputes. On 18.05.2011, Dharmendra Chaudhary came to his house with his wife Rani and assaulted him, which he reported to her family members. Thereafter, the complainant went to the Banki Mongra Police Station and lodged a complaint against him, on which action was taken. 3 Subsequently, on 26.05.2011, Dharmendra Chaudhary, on behalf of his daughter, lodged a report of assault against the complainant at the Banki Mongra Police Station. The said report was being investigated by Assistant Sub-Inspector Balram Sahu, who allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 5000/- for granting him bail. 3. On 27.05.2011, Balram Sahu came to the complainant’s house and asked him to come to the police station with Rs. 5000/-. As the complainant did not have the money, he went to Korba for his work as a driver. Balram Sahu came to his house two or three times, but could not meet him as he was out of town. On 04.06.2011, the complainant complained to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) office regarding the bribe demand and harassment by Balram Sahu. He was advised to lodge a formal complaint. On suspicion of a trap case, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, wrote a letter dated 04.06.2011 to the Protocol Officer requesting two gazetted officers with a vehicle. Pursuant thereto, L.K. Lakra and B.K. Rajput appeared at the ACB office, Bilaspur, and were directed to remain in touch. On 06.06.2011, the complainant Panna Lal submitted a written complaint to Deputy Superintendent of Police Anil Pathak at the ACB office. For verification of his complaint, a telephonic conversation was arranged between the complainant and Balram Sahu, during which Balram Sahu agreed to accept Rs. 3000/- on 07.06.2011. After this, the complainant was called to the Banki Mongra Police Station with the bribe money. The conversation was audio-video recorded and a CD was prepared. A second complaint letter was also taken from the complainant, and FIR No. 0/2011 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against Balram Sahu. The complainant and the panch witnesses were directed to appear at the ACB office on 07.06.2011. 4 4. As per the instructions, panch witnesses L.K. Lakra, Manager, District Industry and Trade Center, Bilaspur, and B.K. Rajput, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Bilaspur, along with Inspector Ramakant Sharma, Constable Kanshiram, Peon Kitab Singh, Farrash Bhuvaneshwar Rao Shinde, Driver Shiv Kumar Pathak, the complainant Panna Lal, and his elder brother Rathram, all appeared at the office at 8:00 a.m. The panch witnesses were shown the CD of the complaint, and the duplicate CD was prepared. The original CD was seized and sealed. 5. The complainant presented six currency notes amounting to Rs. 3000/- (of Rs. 500/- denomination each) to be given as bribe. The numbers of these notes were read out by L.K. Lakra and recorded by B.K. Rajput. The notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Demonstration of the phenolphthalein test was conducted by preparing a sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink upon contact with phenolphthalein. 6. Thereafter, the trap team was formed. At around 11:30 a.m., the team reached Banki Mongra Police Station. The complainant went inside with the bribe money. Since Balram Sahu was not present, he was contacted on mobile and later came and sat in the verandah of the police station. He told the complainant that Rs. 5000/- was still pending from before and asked him to pay Rs. 3000/- now and the remaining later. The complainant then handed over Rs. 3000/- from his shirt pocket to Balram Sahu. After counting the amount, Balram Sahu gave Rs. 1500/- to Assistant Sub-Inspector Andherius Tirkey, who was present there, and kept the remaining in his pant pocket. 7. Upon receiving the pre-decided signal, the trap team entered and apprehended both accused. On search, the tainted notes were recovered from their possession and matched with the recorded serial numbers. Phenolphthalein test conducted on their hands and uniforms confirmed 5 the presence of the tainted powder, as the solutions turned pink. The recovered bribe money and their uniforms were seized. Since the accused had agreed to accept illegal gratification from the complainant, offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 34 IPC were registered. Both accused were arrested, produced before the Special Judge, and remanded to judicial custody. After obtaining sanction for prosecution and completing investigation, charge sheet was filed on 15.07.2014. 8. When the charges were framed and read out, both accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication. Statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they denied acceptance of any bribe. Though they expressed an intention to lead defence evidence, no witness was produced. 9. Learned Special Judge after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 10. Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant No.1 submitted that the appellant No.1, namely, Balram Sahu is aged about 62 years and has already superannuated, as such, he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. It is further submitted that the appellant No.1 has already paid the fine amount of Rs. 20,000/- and has remained in custody for more than 90 days in jail, and is facing the criminal proceedings since 2014, i.e. for more than 10 years. Looking to the age of the appellant i.e. 62 years, the jail sentence awarded to appellant may be considered as undergone by him i.e. more than 90 days, as the appellant has already suffered criminal proceedings for more than 10 years and has already 6 superannuated. To buttress his submissions, reliance has been placed upon the dictum rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Sundara Kumar v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Vigilence and Anti-Corruption, Thoothukudi, District Tamil Nadu reported in (2022) 17 SCC 61, V.K. Verma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 458 and M.W. Mohiuddin Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 567. 11. Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for appellant No.2 submits that the appellant No.2 namely Adherious Tirky has already died and is represented through his wife and legal heirs. He further submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the evidence of complainant as to amount demanded by accused found inconsistent and the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt, the demand of bribe and its acceptance, in a trap laid by the trap team of ACB, therefore the appellant No. 2 is entitled to be acquitted. Further, the trial Court failed to adequately evaluate the procedural irregularities in the trap operation conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). The preparation and execution of the trap, including the handling of phenolphthalein powder and the recording of the bribe transaction, lacked proper documentation and adherence to standard protocols, raising doubts about the integrity of the evidence presented. The prosecution failed to establish a clear motive or nexus between the alleged bribe demand and the official duties of the appellants, particularly appellant No. 2, Andherius Tirkey. There is no concrete evidence demonstrating that the appellants had the authority or intent to influence the bail proceedings, which undermines the applicability of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The discrepancy between the initial demand of Rs. 5000 and the eventual acceptance of Rs. 3000, coupled with the complainant's 7 contradictory statements, casts serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's narrative. Lastly, the trial Court failed to appreciate the lack of direct evidence linking appellant No. 2, Andherius Tirkey, to the alleged bribe demand. The prosecution's case primarily focuses on appellant No. 1, Balram Sahu, and the involvement of appellant No. 2 appears to be based on mere association rather than concrete evidence of his active participation in the alleged offence. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel appearing for the appellants and submitted that the appellants have rightly been convicted and sentenced for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘P.C. Act’), but he could not dispute the fact that the appellant No.1 is old person aged about 62 years and appellant No.2 has died during the pendency of the appeal as it transpires that they are facing the criminal proceedings for more than 10 years. 13. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 14. As the learned counsel appearing for the appellant No.1 has confined his submissions with regard to the sentence part only, this Court does not wish to discuss the case on merit with respect to him, hence, the conviction as awarded by the learned trial Court to the appellant No.1 Balram Sahu, is hereby upheld. 15. In the matter of S. Sundara Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that out of two years' sentence 8 imposed by the learned Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, the appellant has already undergone approximately one year and one month and considering the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and that he is already dismissed from service, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment as imposed by the learned Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, is reduced to that of one year and one month rigorous imprisonment.” 16. In the matter of V.K. Verma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “12. The appellant is now aged 76. We are informed that he is otherwise not keeping good health, having had also cardiovascular problems. The offence is of the year 1984. It is almost three decades now. The accused has already undergone physical incarceration for three months and mental incarceration for about thirty years. Whether at this age and stage, would it not be economically wasteful, and a liability to the State to keep the appellant in prison, is the question we have to address. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence but enhancing the fine, while maintaining the conviction” 17. In the matter of M.W. Mohiuddin (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “10.Now coming to the question of sentence, the offence took place in the year 1981. All these years the appellant has undergone the agony of criminal proceedings uptil now and he has also lost his job and has a large family to support. It is also stated that he has become sick and Infirm. He has been in jail for some time. For all these special reasons, while confirming the conviction of the appellant, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. However, we confirm the sentence of fine with default clause. Accordingly, subject to the modification of sentence of imprisonment, the appeal is dismissed” 9 18. The offence is said to have taken place way back in the year 2011. The appellant No.1 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(3) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There is a minimum sentence of one year prescribed for the offence under the PC Act (as it then was). 19. From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that when the FIR for alleged offence was lodged in the year 2011 against the appellants, appellant No.1 was aged about 48 years and now after lapse of about 14 years, he would be aged about 61 years. All these years, the appellant No.1 has undergone the agony of criminal proceedings till now and they have also lost their jobs and have a large family to support. It is also stated that appellant No.1 – Balram Sahu has already undergone jail sentence for a period of more than 90 days and has paid the fine amount of Rs.20,000/-. 20. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, particularly the extraordinary lapse of 14 years since the commission of the offence, the age of the appellant No.1 at the relevant time (48 years and now aged about 61 years), the prolonged ordeal and mental agony he has faced due to protracted criminal proceedings, and the fact that appellant No.1 has already suffered loss of employment and severe social and financial consequences, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met without requiring further incarceration. It is also relevant to note that, the offence under Section 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as it stood at the relevant time, prescribed a minimum sentence of one year. In the present case, appellant Balram Sahu has already undergone more than 90 days of imprisonment, thereby though 10 he has not satisfied the statutory minimum requirement under the PC Act, but has suffered the agony of criminal trial for so many years and further, paid the fine amount of Rs.20,000/-. In view of this, and guided by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Sundara Kumar (supra), V.K. Verma (supra), and M.W. Mohiuddin (supra), wherein long passage of time, old age, ill-health, and prolonged litigation were treated as special reasons for reduction of sentence while maintaining conviction, this Court finds it appropriate to modify the sentence rather than disturb the conviction. 21. As such, so far as appellant No. 1-Balram Sahu is concerned, while his conviction for the aforesaid offences stands upheld, the sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone, i.e., more than 90 days in custody, as he is more than 61 years at present and has already superannuated, suffered the agony of criminal trial for more than 11 years and has already paid the fine amount of Rs.20,000/-. 22. Accordingly, the appeal on behalf of appellant No.1 namely Balram Sahu stands partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 23. So far as appellant No.2 Andheriyas Tirkey (since deceased, through LRs) is concerned, considering his appeal on merit, it transpires from the record that the case of prosecution is fully supported by the testimony of panch witnesses, trap team members and corroborated by the recovery of tainted money from his pocket, the sodium carbonate test conducted on his fingers having turned positive, and further the explanation offered in his defence does not inspire confidence and remains unsupported by any cogent evidence. Though it has been argued on behalf of the appellant No.2 that the deceased appellant was falsely implicated, but in light of consistent and trustworthy prosecution evidence, the conviction 11 recorded by the trial Court is well-founded. No perversity or illegality is demonstrated in the impugned judgment warranting interference. 24. Accordingly, the appeal on behalf of appellant No.2 namely Andherious Tirky (though LRs) stands dismissed. 25. Since the appellant No.1 is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 26. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal