the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned Special Court while convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, confirmed by the High Court, is hereby reduced to one year and one­month rigorous imprisonment. The order of fine is not upset.

 NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.            OF 2021

    (Arising from SLP(Criminal) No.5832/2019)

S.Sundara Kumar …Appellant

Versus

State Represented by

The Inspector of Police, Vigilance

And Anti­Corruption, Thoothukudi District,

Tamil Nadu …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned

judgment and order dated 23.11.2018 passed by the Madurai

Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 357

of 2008, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal

preferred by the appellant herein – original accused and has

confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence

passed   by   the   learned   Special   Judge­cum­Chief   Judicial

1

Magistrate,   Thoothukudi   dated   23.07.2008   passed   in   Special

Case No.2 of 2004, convicting the accused – appellant herein for

the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and by which the learned

Special   Judge   sentenced   the   accused   to   undergo   rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.5,000/­,

the original accused has preferred the present appeal.

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that earlier by order

dated   02.12.2019,   this   Court   issued   the   limited   notice   on

quantum of sentence only. Meaning thereby the conviction of the

appellant – original accused came to be confirmed by this Court.

Therefore, now the present appeal is required to be considered

qua the quantum of sentence only.

4. Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   –

original   accused   has   submitted   that   by   now   the   appellant   –

original accused has undergone approximately one year and onemonth rigorous imprisonment.  It is submitted that the accusedappellant is already dismissed from service on being convicted for

the   offences   under   the   Prevention   of   Corruption   Act.     It   is

submitted that the appellant is a senior citizen aged about 69/70

years.  Therefore, it is prayed to reduce the sentence imposed by

2

the learned Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, to the

sentence already undergone.

5. Learned   counsel   appearing  on   behalf   of   the   respondentState, as such, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that

the   appellant   has   been   convicted   for   the   offences   under   the

Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore no leniency may be

shown in favour of the accused.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the

facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that

out of two years sentence imposed by the learned Special Court,

confirmed   by   the   High   Court,   the   appellant   has   already

undergone   approximately   one   year   and   one­month   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 one­month rigorous imprisonment.

7. In view of the above and in the facts and circumstances of

the case, the appeal is partly allowed.  The judgment and order of

conviction passed by the learned Special Court, confirmed by the

3

High Court, is hereby confirmed.  However, the sentence of two

years   rigorous   imprisonment   imposed   by   the   learned   Special

Court   while   convicting   the   accused   for   the   offences   under

Sections   7,   13(2)   read   with   13(1)(d)   of   the   Prevention   of

Corruption Act, 1988, confirmed by the High Court, is hereby

reduced to one year and one­month rigorous imprisonment.  The

order of fine is not upset.  The appellant herein be released on

completion of one year and one­month rigorous imprisonment, if

not required in any other case.

………………………………..J.

[ASHOK BHUSHAN]

………………………………..J.

[R. SUBHASH REDDY]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………..J.

JANUARY 13, 2021. [M.R. SHAH]

4