Delhi High Court
Surendra Kumar vs C.B.I on 8 July, 2025
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 19.05.2025
Judgment pronounced on:08.07.2025
+ CRL.A. 869/2002
SURENDRA KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shri Singh, Ms. Sowjhanya
Shankaran, Advs.
versus
C.B.I. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Atul Guleria, SPP with Mr.
Aryan Rakesh, Mr. Prashant
Upadhyay, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
JUDGMENT
: JASMEET SINGH, J
1. This is an appeal filed under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (―the Act‖) read with section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947 (―PC Act‖), seeking to challenge the judgment of conviction dated
21.10.2002 passed in CC No. 66/1994 titled CBI v. Surendra Kumar,
whereby the Appellant has been convicted for the commission of offences
punishable under Section 5(l)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act, and
Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (―IPC‖) and Order on Sentence
dated 24.10.2002, whereby the appellant was sentenced for a period of 02
years (two) rigorous imprisonment (RI) for the offences committed under
section 161 IPC along with a fine of Rs 7,500/-, in case of default, further RI
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
CRL.A. 869/2002 Page 1 of 14
Signing Date:09.07.2025
14:58:46
for 6 months and 03 (three) years RI for the offences committed under
Section 5(l)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act, along with a fine of Rs.
7500/-, in case of default further RI for 6 months. All the sentences were
directed to be run concurrently.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The facts are as under:
2.1. The appellant was employed as the Chief Marketing Manager of the
State Trading Corporation of India (STC). In 1983, STC issued an
invitation for quotations from suppliers for the supply of 140 tonnes
of dried fish to STC. In response, M/s Abdul Hamid and Co., a firm
based in Bombay, submitted its quotation through its partner, Shri
Abdul Karim Hamid (complainant).
2.2. On 03.01.1984, the Complainant, visited the office of the appellant
after finding out that the order for the supply of dried fish had been
placed with other suppliers and not with the appellant’s firm despite
the complainant’s firm offering the same price. During this meeting,
the appellant assured the complainant 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. As the Complainant did not have the said
amount at that time, the appellant instructed him to bring Rs. 7,500/-
the next day, i.e., on 04.01.1984, to Hotel Kanishka at 2 p.m., and to
pay the remaining amount after the order was placed in favour of his
firm. The appellant also told the complainant to come alone.
2.3. The Complainant, unwilling to pay the bribe, approached the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI)/respondent on the morning of
04.01.1984 and lodged a formal complaint (Exhibit PW2/A). Based
on this complaint, a case was registered vide RC No. 1/1984 under
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
CRL.A. 869/2002 Page 2 of 14
Signing Date:09.07.2025
14:58:46
Section 5(l)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act, Thereafter, the
CBI initiated trap proceedings to apprehend the appellant.
2.4. A raiding team was constituted. The complainant produced 75
government currency notes of Rs. 100 each. The serial numbers of the
notes were recorded in a report. Two independent witnesses, namely,
P.C. Sehgal (PW – 4) and CM Kapoor (PW – 11), were called as
panch witnesses. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr. Darshan Singh
then briefed the complainant and the panch witnesses on the
procedure for trapping the accused. The 75 currency notes were
treated with phenolphthalein powder, and a solution of sodium
carbonate was also prepared. It was explained to the complainant and
the panch witnesses, that if anyone touched the phenolphthalein-
treated notes and then dipped their fingers into the sodium carbonate
solution, it would turn pink indicating contact with the treated notes.
The treated currency notes were then returned to the complainant,
who kept the same in his briefcase in an envelope. The complainant
was also given a tape recorder and the complainant’s son, namely,
Shakeel was asked to accompany his father.
2.5. The raiding team comprising of the complainant, his son (PW-2),
panch witnesses and the CBI officials reached Hotel Kanshika at
around 1 p.m. on 04.01.1984. Pursuant thereto, the appellant took the
complainant and his son to Room No. 1230 of Hotel Ashok Yatri
Niwas where the exchange of Rs. 7,500/- took place.
2.6. Once the exchange was done, the appellant gave the pre-arranged
signal to the members of the raiding team. Consequently, the appellant
was apprehended with the briefcase, in which the 75 phenolphthalein-
treated government currency notes were kept in an envelope.
Thereafter, the appellant’s hands were washed in separate sodium
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
CRL.A. 869/2002 Page 3 of 14
Signing Date:09.07.2025
14:58:46
carbonate solutions, prepared at the spot, which turned pink,
indicating contact with phenolphthalein-treated currency notes. The
sealed envelope containing the tainted notes was also dipped into a
fresh sodium carbonate solution, which similarly turned pink.
2.7. The appellant was then arrested.
3. On completion of the investigation, the CBI filed the chargesheet against the
appellant for commission of offences under Section 5(l)(d) read with Section
5(2) of the PC Act, and Section 161 of the IPC. After taking cognizance,
charges were framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
4. During trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in total, being PW1 PC
Luther (sanctioning authority, STC), PW 2 Shakeel Machhiwala
(Complainant’s son), PW 3 Complainant (examined only partly in chief and
died before cross examination), PW 4 PC Sehgal (Panch Witness), PW 5
Om Prakash Batra (Hotel Ashok Yatri Niwas), PW 6 Sanwar Sharma (Hotel
Ashok Yatri Niwas), PW 7 SAS Bindra (Dy. Marketing Manager, STC), PW
8 NS Bisaria (CFSL), PW 9 Purushottam Lal (Inspector, CBI), PW 10 Rajiv
Makin (Hotel Ashok Yatri Niwas), PW 11 CM Kapoor (Panch Witness),
PW 12 T. Sukumaran (Hotel Ashok Yatri Niwas), PW 13 RK Joshi
(Investigating Officer).
5. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of
the Act, under which he denied the allegations made against him that he had
demanded bribe against the complainant. After pleadings and arguments
made on behalf of the parties, the impugned judgment came to be passed on
21.10.2002, whereby the appellant was found guilty of offences punishable
under Section 5(l)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act, and Section 161
of the IPC.
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
CRL.A. 869/2002 Page 4 of 14
Signing Date:09.07.2025
14:58:46
6. Vide order of sentence dated 24.10.2002, the appellant was sentenced for a
period of 02 years (two) RI for the offences committed under section 161
IPC along with a fine of Rs 7,500/-, in case of default, further RI for 6
months and 03 (three) years RI for the offences committed under Section
5(l)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act, along with a fine of Rs. 7500/-,
in case of default further RI for 6 months. All the sentences were directed to
be run concurrently.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
7. The appellant had initially advanced some arguments on the merits of the
matter but subsequently gave up his challenge to his conviction and
restricted his arguments to the reduction of quantum of sentence and the
same has been duly recorded in the order dated 02.07.2025, when the matter
was listed for clarification.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the learned Special Court ought
to have exercised its discretion under the proviso to Section 5(2) of the PC
Act, particularly considering that the alleged offence was committed on
03.01.1984, and the Appellant remained under trial for over eighteen and a
half years before conviction. The Appellant was arrested on 04.01.1984 and
was released on bail shortly thereafter. He has diligently participated in the
trial without causing any delay or disruption. It is not in dispute that the
Appellant was in custody for one day and was released on execution of a
bond of Rs.10,000/-.
9. It is further stated that that over 42 years have passed since the incident and
more than 22 years since the filing of the present appeal. The Appellant,
now over 90 years of age and virtually bedridden due to multiple age-related
ailments, would suffer undue hardship if incarcerated at this stage. The
inordinate delay, not attributable to the appellant, has violated his
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
CRL.A. 869/2002 Page 5 of 14
Signing Date:09.07.2025
14:58:46
fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Additionally, it is stated that the appellant has already deposited the
fine amount of Rs.15000/-.
10. As regards, the sentences awarded under section 161 IPC and Section 5(2)
read with Section 5(l)(d) of the PC Act is concerned, learned counsel relies
on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.K. Verma v.
Central Bureau of Investigation (2014) 3 SCC 485 (paras 6, 7, 8, 12 and
13).
11. Further, reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Ketan V Parekh v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2435 (para 8 and 9) to state that considering the appellant’s
advanced age of over 90 years and his extremely fragile health, a sentence of
one day (already undergone) may kindly be considered appropriate in the
present case, as any further incarceration would gravely impact and cause
irreparable loss to the appellant.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
12. It is fairly submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the appellant was
taken into custody on 04.01.1984 and subsequently released on bail, the
Court is vested with discretion under the proviso to Section 5(2) of the PC
Act to impose a sentence of less than one year. In the event the conviction is
upheld, the appellant’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.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
13. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that the appellant is not
challenging the judgment of conviction dated 21.10.2002. The arguments of
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
CRL.A. 869/2002 Page 6 of 14
Signing Date:09.07.2025
14:58:46
the appellant are only towards seeking a reduction of the sentence to the
period already undergone, (one day), considering the appellant’s advanced
age, deteriorating health condition, and other mitigating circumstances.
14. Section 5(1) (d) and section 5(2) of the PC Act reads as under:
“5. Criminal misconduct in discharge of official duty.
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal
misconduct: –
…
(d) if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing
his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any
other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, or
…
(2) Any public servant, who commits criminal misconduct shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than one year but which may extend to seven years and
shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the court may, for any special reasons recorded
in writing impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one
year.”
15. As regards, Section 161 of the IPC is concerned, the same has been repealed
by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The provision earlier dealt with
public servants taking illegal gratification other than legal remuneration with
respect to any official act. The pre amended provision reads as under:
“161. Public servant taking gratification other than legal
remuneration in respect of an official act.”
16. Section 5(1)(d) of the PC Act deals with the offence of a public servant
abusing his position to obtain for himself or for any other person any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage dishonestly or fraudulently.
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
CRL.A. 869/2002 Page 7 of 14
Signing Date:09.07.2025
14:58:46
Meanwhile, section 5(2) of the PC Act prescribes the punishment for
offences committed under Section 5(1). Any person guilty of the offences
committed under Section 5(1) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven
years, along with a fine.
17. The proviso to Section 5(2) of the PC Act empowers the court to award a
sentence of less than one year for special reasons recorded in writing.
18. The issue before me is whether the sentence of the appellant, as imposed by
the learned trial court, warrants interference in light of the mitigating
circumstances placed on record — such as clean antecedents, the advanced
age of the appellant, his deteriorating health condition and prolonged delay
in the conclusion of proceedings.
19. In criminal jurisprudence, sentencing is not merely a mechanical exercise
but involves a careful balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors. While
aggravating circumstances highlight the gravity and impact of the offence,
mitigating factors provide insight into the personal circumstances of the
offender which may require a lesser punishment.
20. Mitigating factors may include the age of the accused, absence of prior
criminal record, mental or physical health conditions, socio-economic
background, duration of trial, and good conduct during incarceration. In this
regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Giasuddin vs State of
Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287 inter alia held as under:
―9. … It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration,
that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has
to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to
anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty
but by re-culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in
penology is the individual, and the goal is salvaging him for
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
CRL.A. 869/2002 Page 8 of 14
Signing Date:09.07.2025
14:58:46
society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a
relic of past and regressive times. The human today views
sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has
deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a
primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of
social defence. We, therefore, consider a therapeutic, rather
than an “in terrorem” outlook, should prevail in our criminal
courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely
produces laceration of his mind.
…
16. … „A proper sentence is the amalgam of many factors
such as the nature of the offence, the circumstances —
extenuating or aggravating — of the offence, the prior
criminal record, if any, of the offender, the age of the
offender, the record of the offender as to employment, the
background of the offender with reference to education, home
life, sobriety and social adjustment, the emotional and mental
conditions of the offender, the prospects for the rehabilitation
of the offender, the possibility of return of the offender to
normal life in the community, the possibility of treatment or
training of the offender, the possibility that the sentence may
serve as a deterrent to crime by the offender or by others and
the current community need, if any, for such a deterrent in
respect to the particular type of offence. These factors have to
be taken into account by the Court in deciding upon the
appropriate sentence. [ As observed in Santa Singh v. State of
Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 190 at p. 191: 1976 SCC (Cri) 546] ‟
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
CRL.A. 869/2002 Page 9 of 14
Signing Date:09.07.2025
14:58:46
17. It will thus be seen that there is a great discretion vested in
the Judge, especially when pluralistic factors enter his
calculations. … innovation, in all conscience, is in the field of
judicial discretion.”
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Similarly, in Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1104, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while relying on the judgment
of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) reiterated the importance of considering
mitigating factors while awarding sentence, particularly in cases involving
long-pending prosecutions. The Court observed that the incident in question
therein had occurred nearly four decades ago and that the appellant had no
prior criminal record. Therefore, the sentence of the appellant therein was
reduced from 5 years to 3 years considering the mitigating circumstances.
The operative portion reads as under:
“10. It is a well-established principle that while imposing
sentence, aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a case
are to be taken into consideration.
…
13. Similarly, in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Narinder
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC
(Cri) 54] (two-Judge Bench), while considering the settlement
between the parties concerning an offence under Section
307IPC, observed:
13.1. The goal of sentencing can be a combination of
incapacitation, specific deterrence, general deterrence,
rehabilitation, or restoration.
13.2. In India we do not have any such sentencing
policy till date. The prevalence of such guidelines may
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
CRL.A. 869/2002 Page 10 of 14
Signing Date:09.07.2025
14:58:46
not only aim at achieving consistency in awarding
sentences in different cases, such guidelines normally
prescribe the sentencing policy as well, namely, whether
the purpose of awarding punishment in a particular
case is more of a deterrence or retribution or
rehabilitation, etc. In the absence of such guidelines in
India, the courts go by their own perception about the
philosophy behind the prescription of certain specified
penal consequences for particular nature of crime.
13.3. For some deterrence and/or vengeance becomes
more important whereas another Judge may be more
influenced by rehabilitation or restoration as the goal of
sentencing. Sometimes, it would be a combination of both
which would weigh in the mind of the court in awarding
a particular sentence. However, that may be a question
of quantum.
…
16. More recently, in Jasbir Singh v. Tara Singh [Jasbir Singh
v. Tara Singh, (2016) 16 SCC 441 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 514]
(two-Judge Bench), this Court observed that it is not possible to
have strict principles on sentencing in absence of a sentencing
policy for the State, however certain mitigating factors like the
gravity of the offence, motive for commission of the crime, the
manner in which it was committed need to be borne in mind
and thereafter sentence be imposed.
…
20. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel
appearing for the parties and findings of the courts below, it
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
CRL.A. 869/2002 Page 11 of 14
Signing Date:09.07.2025
14:58:46
can be seen that 39 years have passed since the date of offence
and both the other accused persons have come to be acquitted.
From a reading of the impugned order [Pramod Kumar Mishra
v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 7212] , it is a matter of
record that there was old enmity between the complainant and
A-1 relating to the piece of land where the offence came to be
committed, while pertinently, the appellant (A-2) is the nephew
of A-1.
21. There are no criminal antecedents of the appellant that
have been brought on record. Further, from the record, it
cannot be said that the appellant acted in a premeditated
manner, whatsoever.
22. Therefore, in the interest of justice and in consideration of
the abovementioned mitigating factors, this Court reduces the
sentence imposed on the appellant-accused from 5 years
rigorous imprisonment to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment.
The appellant shall pay a fine amount of Rs 50,000 (Rupees
fifty thousand) within a period of 6 weeks from today. In default
of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 3 months. The fine to be paid to the
complainant by way of compensation.”
(Emphasis supplied)
22. From the aforesaid judgment(s) it is clear that the objective of sentencing
has to be a combination of deterrence and rehabilitation. Both have to
coexist and in the absence of one, the purpose of the other cannot be
achieved. The list of mitigating factors has been enumerated above and the
same are only illustrative and not exhaustive. No hard and fast formula or
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
CRL.A. 869/2002 Page 12 of 14
Signing Date:09.07.2025
14:58:46
mechanism for combining deterrence with rehabilitation can be laid down,
but the same has to be worked out on individual and case to case basis.
23. Coming to the facts of the present case, the incident took place on
04.01.1984, and since then the proceedings have been continuing for over
four decades — with the trial itself taking nearly 19 years to conclude, and
the present appeal 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.
24. A vital mitigating factor in considering the sentence is the appellant’s
advanced age. At 90 years old, suffering from serious health ailments, he is
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 appellant has not challenged his conviction and the fact that the
appellant was found guilty for offences under Sections 5(l)(d) read with
Section 5(2) of the PC Act and section 161 IPC shall remain with the
appellant for his entire life. The appellant has duly prosecuted his appeal till
today i.e. for more than 40 years there has been no other FIR or criminal
case of any kind registered against the appellant. Even prior to 04.01.1984
(the date of the offence), the appellant did not have any criminal antecedents
and the incident in question was his first and only offence. Additionally, the
record shows that the appellant has already deposited the fine of Rs. 15,000/-
imposed by the learned Special Judge on 24.10.2002.
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
CRL.A. 869/2002 Page 13 of 14
Signing Date:09.07.2025
14:58:46
25. 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.
26. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms, and the bail bond and surety
bond stands discharged.
JASMEET SINGH, J
JULY 08, 2025 / priyesh
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPANSHU MALASI
CRL.A. 869/2002 Page 14 of 14
Signing Date:09.07.2025
14:58:46
[ad_1]
Source link