ADITYA NATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner submits only on the question of sentence, since the conviction under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act (for short "the Act") made by the Special Judge has been upheld in appeal by the High Court.

(2.) The allegation against the appellant which has been proved in the case in hand is that he had taken a bribe of Rs. 50. 00. The occurrence is of the year 1977 and 23 years have passed in the meantime. The Court below in exercise of its power under the proviso to Section 5 of the Act has reduced the sentence to six months, but the learned counsel says that in view of the decision of this Court in B. G. Goswami v. Delhi Admn. which has been reaffirmed and followed in Ramesh Kumar Gupta v. State of M. P. the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.

(3.) In the facts and circumstances of the present case, more particularly, taking into account the fact that the offence itself was committed 23 years back, while upholding the conviction, we direct that the appellant shall be sentenced to the period already undergone and he shall pay a fine of Rs. 200, failing which the appellant will undergo sentence for two months.