Delhi High Court Grants Relief To 90-Year-Old Booked In 1984 For Demanding ₹15K Bribe
In a 41-year-old corruption case, the Delhi High Court has granted relief to a 90-year-old man, who remained in custody for only one day and remained on bail during pendency of trial and appeal, by commuting his sentence to the period already undergone.
Surendra Kumar, who was working in Chief Marketing Manager of the State Trading Corporation of India (STCI), was arrested in the case in 1984 over the allegations of demanding Rs. 15,000 bribe from a firm partner. Kumar was released on bail shortly after his arrest but was convicted in the case after 19 years- in 2002.
Same year, Kumar filed appeal against his conviction and sentence of two years and Rs. 15,000 of fine. On November 22, 2002, a coordinate bench had ordered that Kumar shall remain on bail as granted by the trial court.
In a judgment passed on July 08, Justice Jasmeet Singh noted that the the incident took place on January 04, 1984, and since then the proceedings had been continuing for over four decades — with the trial itself taking nearly 19 years to conclude, and the appeal before the High Court remaining pending for more than 22 years.
“Such inordinate delay is plainly at odds with the constitutional mandate of a speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Sword of Damocles' and uncertainty qua the fate of the case of the appellant have been uncertain for a period of nearly 40 years and that by itself is a mitigating factor,” the Court said.
As per the FIR registered in 1984, the STC issued an invitation for quotations from suppliers for the supply of 140 tonnes of dried fish. In response, a Mumbai based firm submitted its quotation through its partner- Abdul Karim Hamid, the complainant.
Hamid alleged that during a meeting, Kumar assured his that the STC would place an order for 140 tonnes of dried fish on his firm, but demanded a bribe of Rs. 15,000 in return. The FIR alleged that Kumar asked Hamid to bring Rs. 7,500 the next day in a hotel and to pay the remaining amount after the order was placed in favour of his firm.
Hamid then lodged a complaint with CBI and a raiding team was constituted. The exchange of money worth Rs. 7,500 happened between Kumar and Hamid in a hotel and the former was apprehended with the suitcase later.
In 2002, Kumar was convicted for the offences Section 5(l)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Before the High Court, Kumar's counsel initially made some arguments on the merits of the matter but subsequently gave up the challenge to the conviction and restricted the arguments to the reduction of quantum of sentence.
His counsel submitted that Kumar had diligently participated in the trial without causing any delay or disruption and that he was in custody for one day and was released on execution of a bond of Rs.10,000.
It was also submitted that that over 42 years had passed since the incident and more than 22 years since the filing of the appeal- Kumar was over 90 years of age and virtually bedridden due to multiple age-related ailments and would suffer undue hardship if incarcerated at this stage. The counsel informed Court that Kumar had already paid the fine amount imposed by the trial court.
The CBI contended that Kumar was taken into custody on January 04, 1984, and was subsequently released on bail and that the Court is vested with discretion under the PC Act to impose a sentence of less than one year.
It was submitted that if the conviction is upheld, Kumar's plea for reduction of sentence may be considered in light of settled principles of law, his advanced age and deteriorating health, and other mitigating factors such as loss of employment and family obligations.
Granting relief to Kumar, Justice Singh said that in criminal jurisprudence, sentencing is not merely a mechanical exercise but involves a careful balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors.
The Court said that the vital mitigating factor in considering the sentence was Kumar's advanced age of 90 years, coupled with the fact that he was suffering from serious health ailments and was highly vulnerable to the physical and psychological impact of incarceration.
“Any such imprisonment would risk causing irreversible harm and would defeat the very objective of mitigating the sentence. The appellant was a senior officer with STC and has already suffered incarceration for one day,” the Court said.
It noted that Kumar duly prosecuted his appeal till today i.e. for more than 40 years, and there was no other FIR or criminal case of any kind registered against him.
The Court said that even prior to the date of the offence, Kumar did not have any criminal antecedents and the incident in question was his first and only offence.
Noting that Kumar had already deposited the fine of Rs. 15,000 imposed by the Special Judge in October 2002, the Court ordered:
“Considering the above circumstances, I am of the view that this is a fit case for reducing the quantum of sentence of the appellant considering the mitigating circumstances. Hence, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the time already served.
The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms, and the bail bond and surety bond stands discharged.”
Title: SURENDRA KUMAR v. CBI