K.K. Bansal v. Special Judge, Anti Corruption U.P. (East), Dehradun & Anr.

submitted by the counsel for the appellant show that the appellant is 55 years of age and is (cid:147)suffering from Quadriparesis ϵ polyrensopathy ϵ Dementia # neck femur & femur shaft(cid:148) and he is unable to walk and his general condition is unsatisfactory.

8. Vide order dated 6.1.2012 this Court had directed the Chief Medical Officer, Dehradun to medically examine accused/appellant K.K. Bansal. The accused/appellant was examined by a team of doctor consisting of a senior physician, senior ortho-surgeon and a mental illness specialist. The report of the medical team is as under :- (cid:147)From orthopaedic point of view he can go to anywhere on wheel chair with the help of attendant, he is not suffering from any psychiatric disorder at present, and he can move around with support and required regular physiotherapy.(cid:148)

9. It appears that the medical team examined the appellant with the sole purpose of certifying as to whether he is fit to be present in the Court or not. That seems to be the purpose. Today, however, the appellant is present in the Court. His condition is not different from what has been stated in the medical certificate.

10. He has already suffered enough. He has lost his job and although he has a family to support, this Court has 5 also been informed that he is also not getting any pensionary benefits, out of the service he had rendered.

11. In view of the peculiar conditions of the appellant and the fact that the matter is extremely old pertaining to the year 1986-87, when the conviction and sentence was imposed and the occurrence itself is of more than 25 years back, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence. It is also noticed by the Court that the accused is without job and presently approaching 60 years of age. I therefore convert the sentence of one year(cid:146)s R.I. under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to that of a sentence which the appellant shall undergo till the rising of the Court, sentence of six months(cid:146) R.I. under Section 120 B I.P.C. to that of sentence which the appellant shall undergo till the rising of the Court, sentence of one year R.I. under Section 420 IPC to that of a sentence which the appellant shall undergo till the rising of the Court, Sentence of one year R.I. under Section 468 IPC to that of sentence which the appellant shall undergo till the rising of the Court and sentence of one year R.I. under Section 471 I.P.C. to that of sentence which the appellant shall undergo till the rising of the Court. The fine of ‘ 2,000/- under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, ‘ 500/- under Section 120 B IPC, ‘ 500/- under Section 420 IPC, ‘ 500/- under Section 468 IPC and ‘ 500/- under Section 471 IPC shall, however, be maintained and shall be paid by the appellant within a period of six months from today.

12. It must be stated here that while reducing the sentence of the appellant under these special circumstances mentioned above, this Court has relied 6 upon two judgments of the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court. The first is, B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration (1974) 3 SCC 85 and the second is, T.M. Joseph v. State of Kerala 1993 Supp (1) 465, where the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court while reducing the sentence had observed that (cid:147)appellant suffered agony and the harassment of the proceedings for over seven years and that he is also going to lose his job and has to earn for himself and his family members and for those dependent on him and, therefore, to meet the ends of justice the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.(cid:148)

13. Consequent to the above directions, this Court confirms the conviction of the accused, yet the sentence is reduced to the extent as stated above. However, the fine as awarded by the trial court is maintained. It is further clarified that the reduction of the sentence till the rising of the Court which shall run concurrently, shall depend on the deposition of the fine, which shall be made within six months from today.

14. Subject the aforesaid modification judgment and order dated 6.11.1998 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, U.P. (East), Dehradun in C.B.I. Case No. 10 of 1993, criminal appeal stands disposed of.

15. Lower court record be sent back.

7.6.2012 Avneet (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)