Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, delivered a judgement modifying the sentence of a public servant convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan considered the appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court, Parbhani, and subsequently upheld by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. While maintaining the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Supreme Court modified the custodial sentence, taking into account the appellant’s age and the protracted duration of the legal proceedings.

The matter originated from the judgment and order dated 3rd September 2024 passed by the High Court, which had affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Special Judge, Parbhani, in Special Case No. 05/2000. The appellant, a former public servant, was convicted for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for two years with a fine of Rs. 2,000 for the offence under Section 7, and R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 13, with default stipulations.

Also Read: Summoning Of Accused Under Section 319 CrPC Restored | Unproven Alibi Cannot Override Sworn Testimony | Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order In Suicide Abetment Case

The appellant, through learned senior counsel Ms. Meenakshi Arora, raised multiple legal contentions before the Supreme Court, challenging the conviction and sentence. The principal arguments included:

1. Sanction to prosecute was mechanically granted.

2. Investigation was conducted by an officer below the rank prescribed under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. Demand for illegal gratification was not conclusively proved, as required under the decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731.

4. One of the seizure witnesses was related to the complainant.

Alternatively, Ms. Arora requested for modification of the sentence, considering that the incident occurred over 25 years ago and the appellant had become a septuagenarian. She relied on the decision in H.P. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1466 of 2017, where this Court reduced the sentence in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

On the contrary, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned counsel representing the State of Maharashtra, argued that the conviction and sentence were based on sound evidence. She submitted that the appellant had not spent a single day in custody and that the punishment awarded was not the maximum permitted under the law.

The Court examined the submissions and noted the relevant Government Order dated 19th April 1989, which authorized Inspectors of Police in the Anti-Corruption Bureau to conduct investigations under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court held that the investigation was valid and in accordance with law.

Addressing the issue of sanction, the Court stated that “Grant of sanction is an administrative function based on the subjective satisfaction of the sanctioning authority after due application of mind.” It found no evidence that the sanctioning authority failed to apply its mind.

Regarding the demand for illegal gratification, the Court observed that the demand had been established through prosecution witnesses and the appellant’s own statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court noted, “The demand, in our view, has been proved without a doubt.”

As to the related seizure witness, the Court held that his testimony could not be discarded merely on the ground of relationship, especially when his version had withstood thorough cross-examination.

The Bench recorded detailed observations on the issue of sanction, investigation, proof of demand, and sentencing.

On the validity of sanction, the Court stated, “If a draft order is placed before the sanctioning authority and he is satisfied that nothing needs to be added or deleted therefrom, the grant of sanction cannot be faulted merely on the ground of absence of addition or deletion.”

On the challenge to the investigation by an officer of the rank of Inspector, the Court referred to the Government Order dated 19th April 1989 and stated, “The Government of Maharashtra hereby authorizes all the Inspectors of Police in the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Maharashtra State, to investigate any offence punishable under the said Act and to make arrest therefor without a warrant.”

In regard to the demand for illegal gratification, the Court found the appellant’s defense unsustainable. It stated, “Acceptance of Rs. 500 has not been justified particularly when it was the assertion of the complainant that after bargaining with the appellant, he had reduced the demand from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 500 for making over the 7/12 extracts.”

Also Read: Bombay High Court Slams Inaction On LED Fishing Ban | Enforces Stringent Measures To Protect Marine Life And Traditional Livelihoods

Concerning the prayer for reduction of sentence under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court stated, “Law is well-settled that exercise of power conferred by Article 142, in a case where a minimum sentence is prescribed by the statute, cannot be tinkered, for the same would amount to legislation by the Court.” However, considering the age of the appellant and the prolonged duration of the case, the Court modified the sentence to simple imprisonment (S.I.) for one year under Section 7 while maintaining the original sentence under Section 13(1)(d).

The Court issued the following directives:

• The appellant’s sentence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is modified to simple imprisonment for a year.

• The sentence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) remains unchanged.

• Both sentences shall run concurrently.

• The appellant shall surrender within six weeks from the date of judgment to serve his sentence. Failure to do so will result in the recall of the modification order, and the original sentence of two years R.I. will stand reinstated.

• The appellant must also pay the fine imposed by the Special Court within the same period.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate

For the Respondent-State: Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Advocate

Case Title: Dashrath v. The State of Maharashtra

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 654

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13997 of 2024]

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan

[Read/Download order]