[2025:RJ-JP:42201] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 600/1994 P.G.K. Nayar son of Shri C. Achyutan Nayar, resident of Parambhat House Village and Post Auervgam Distrist Trichur (Kerala), working as U.D.C. in Western Railways, Bombay. ----Accused-Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan, through C.B.I. Jaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Adv., with Mr. S.S. Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Singh Yadav, Spl.P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN J U D G M E N T 15/10/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused- appellant against the judgment dated 24.11.1994 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Jaipur (for brevity, “the learned trial Court”) in Special Case No.2/1989 whereby, he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- “Section 161 IPC:- One year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-; in default whereof, further rigorous imprisonment of two months. Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for brevity, “the Act of 1947”):- rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.500/-; in default whereof rigorous imprisonment of two months. [2025:RJ-JP:42201] (2 of 5) [CRLA-600/1994] Both substantive sentences to run concurrently.” 2. The relevant facts in brief are that a written report dated 28.07.1988 (Ex.P/2) was submitted by complainant Bharat S/o Shri Hemu to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I, Jaipur alleging therein that the appellant was demanding illegal gratification from him and his four other companions namely Shashikant, Narayan, Mangal Singh and Veera. It was mentioned in the complaint that they all are working as casual labour in Western Railway Phulera. They belong to Bhuj, Gujarat. The concerned Chief Engineer has already ordered for their transfer but the appellant, who is senior clerk in the office of Executive Engineer, Western Railways, Jaipur is demanding illegal gratification in lieu of their relieving order. It was also mentioned that part amount of bribe has already been given to him but remaining amount of Rs.800/- is yet to be given and they wanted to get him arrested by the concerned authorities red-handed. In pursuance of the said written complaint, trap proceedings were conducted and appellant was apprehended. In connection with the aforesaid written report, FIR No.34(A)/1988 came to be registered against the appellant. After completion of investigation, Investigating Agency filed charge-sheet against the appellant. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After completion of trial, the appellant has been [2025:RJ-JP:42201] (3 of 5) [CRLA-600/1994] convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove by learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 24.11.1994. 3. Although, learned counsel submits that the prosecution failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the public servant demanded illegal gratification and mere recovery of so-called bribe amount from the appellant is not enough to hold him guilty as prosecution failed to complete the "demand-acceptance- recovery" chain but eschewing merits of the case, he submits that he would feel contended, if while maintaining the conviction, substantive sentence awarded to him vide impugned judgment is set aside. He urges that the appellant is an old man of about 86 years of age, is facing trauma of this criminal case for last about 37 years and, therefore, the substantive sentence awarded to him be reduced/modified to the period already undergone. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon a judgment of this Court in case of Ramlal Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 1982 (7) Rajasthan Criminal Cases 120. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. The accused appellant, who at present is aged about 86 years as per his age mentioned in the arrest memo, is facing trauma of this criminal case for last about 37 years. He has remained in custody for a period of eight days. In identical circumstances, this Court has, in case of Ramlal (supra), held as under:- “In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the [2025:RJ-JP:42201] (4 of 5) [CRLA-600/1994] accused appellant both under Section 161 IPC and 5 (1) (d) read with 6 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act are set aside. The accused appellant is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 600/- under section 161 IPC and also to a fine of Rs. 600/- under Section 5/ (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months each in default of payment of fine on both the counts. Two month's time is allowed to deposit the fine in the trial Court. In case the amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to serve out the sentences awarded to the accused in default of payment of fine.” 7. Their Lordships have held in the cases of, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0015/2012: (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. MANU/SC/1627/1998: (1998) 9 SCC 678 as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances." Haripada Das (Supra) "...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some [2025:RJ-JP:42201] (5 of 5) [CRLA-600/1994] period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…" 8. Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, the material on record and in the backdrop of the aforesaid precendential law, this appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 24.11.1994, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 is reduced and modified to the period already undergone. Since, the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged. Three months’ time is allowed to the appellant to deposit the fine failing which he shall serve the default sentence and the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to take necessary consequential steps. 9. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Sudhir Asopa/S-71