2026:JHHC:11212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1454 of 2003 [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.08.2023, passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi, in R.C. Case No.2A/2000(R)] -------- Sri Ajit Sardar @ Ajit Kr. Sardar, son of A.K. Sardar, resident of Chota Muri, Railway Colony, P.S.-Muri, District-Ranchi ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate Mrs. Juhi Kumari, Amicus Curiae For the C.B.I. : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, Spl. P.P. -------- JUDGMENT Dated: 17th April, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl. P.P. for the C.B.I. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 14.08.2003, passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi, in R.C. Case No.2A/2000(R) whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one and half years along with fine of Rs. 4,000/- with default stipulation under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs. 6,000/- with default stipulation under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant- Narendra Thakkar had undertaken railway contract work under M/s. 2026:JHHC:11212 2 Kamla Construction in the year 1996 and had received payments from time to time for civil repair work and construction work. Besides that, he had carried out repair work of a railway quarter two years earlier worth Rs.10,000/- but did not receive payment for the same. On repeated requests, the Junior Engineer, Ajit Kumar Sardar, measured the work but did not record it in the Measurement Book (M.B.). Eventually, when the informant met the engineer on 15.01.2000, he allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000/- to make the said entry. The engineer (accused/appellant) reiterated that no entry would be made unless the bribe was paid by 17.01.2000. Acting on the complaint, S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi verified the allegations, registered an F.I.R. and organized a trap. The accused was caught red-handed accepting Rs.1,000/-. 4. After due investigation, the C.B.I. submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. Cognizance of the offences was taken under the aforesaid sections. 5. After getting supplied the police papers to the accused, charges were framed against the accused under aforesaid sections. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The case of accused is denial from allegations and false implication. 7. After conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment was passed which has been assailed in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the judgment has confined herself towards the quantum of sentence awarded 2026:JHHC:11212 3 to the appellant. It is submitted that only Rs.1000/- was involved in this case which was demanded as bribery and the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is of 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d). 9. The appellant has sustained the agony of trial since more than two decades and has also undergone substantial period of imprisonment above one year and three months during pendency of the trial and post- conviction. Therefore, the appellant may be sentence for the offence committed by him to the imprisonment already undergone instead of sentence of two years awarded by the learned Trial Court. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, learned Spl.P.P. for the C.B.I., has defended the impugned judgment on merits but so far sentence is concerned, it is submitted that the matter is an old one therefore, appropriate order may be passed on dismissing the appeal on merits. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence committed by the appellant and his period of custody and long sufferance of agony of trial, it appears expedient, in the ends of justice, to alter/modify the sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant is awarded sentence of imprisonment already undergone as against the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court. 12. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above. 13. Appellant is on bail, as such he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 14. Pending I.A.(s), if any, is also disposed of. 2026:JHHC:11212 4 15. I take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mrs. Juhi Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fee as per notification of High Court Legal Services Committee to Mrs. Juhi Kumari, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 16. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee. 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned court immediately for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 17.04.2026 Arpit Uploaded on 24/04/2026