P N RGHAVA PANICKER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant at the time of the commission of offence was an Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board and being in a position to sanction an electric connection got into a deal with PW.1, Abdulla, for payment of Rs.200/- as bribe. Abdulla, PW.1 set the criminal law in motion and had a trap laid on 28-3-1985 at about noon time with the aid of P.W.12, the Circle Inspector of Police, Vigilance. That the trap was successful, has been found by both the Courts below inasmuch as the tainted money was passed on to the appellant, his hands got smeared with phenolphthalein powder with which those currency notes were smeared before-hand, and the washing of the hands of the appellant confirmed that position. The appellant had no explanation to offer as to how the tainted money got into his hands and thus the test of preponderance of probabilities, in the absence of a specific plea, has also no role to play. The appellant pleaded for his acquittal solely on the ground of the validity of sanction. The First Court having rejected it, the High Court repaired the view in the sense that by that time the lacuna suggested in the sanction stood filled up by a Government Order to the effect that the Chairman of the Kerala State Electricity Board became the appointing authority of the appellant from restrospective date, retrospectively covering up the date on which the offence was committed. The appellant having failed on the legal front and also having failed to establish his innocence on the factual front has come up before us in further appeal.

(2.) As is apparent, the appellant has no case on either fronts. Some attempt however in that direction was made by Mr.Mathai M. Paikeday, learned counsel for the appellant, but he was quick to shift over in praying for reduction of sentence of the appellant for the reason that the offence was committed almost two years prior to his retirement and on the conviction recorded he has lost his retiral benefits. According to him, it is a case in which the minimum of one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/- need not necessarily be imposed. Even though the sentence imposed under the count of Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is for two years and under Section 161, I.P.C. for one year, we agree with him that in these state of affairs we should reduce the sentence taking in aid the rule laid down by this Court in B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration, (1974) 3 SCC 85 . As to the actual sentence undergone by the appellant, we are on firm ground that from the date of his surrender to the date when this Court granted him bail, he must have undergone nearly 5 months and possibly some more sentence at the lower stages. In any event, the sentence undergone by him while his appeal was pending before us should be enough to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly we reduce the sentence of the appellant under both the counts to the period already undergone and order them to have run concurrently. However, we sustain the order of fine of Rs.500/- imposed under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appeal is partially allowed with this limited success towards modificaton of sentence. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.