Supreme Court Affirms Corruption Conviction but Reduces One-Year Sentence for Elderly Accused

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan heard an appeal by Dashrath against a judgment of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, which had dismissed his criminal appeal challenging conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appeal arose from conviction and sentences imposed by the Special Judge, Parbhani, in Special Case No. 05/2000 and contested issues included the validity of sanction, competence of the investigating officer, proof of demand and acceptance of a bribe, and the credibility of a seizure witness.

The Court affirmed the conviction on both counts but modified the sentence in part. It declined to accept the contention that sanction was mechanically granted, holding that “all that is necessary for a sanction to be granted is for [the sanctioning authority] to be satisfied about the existence of a prima facie case.” The Bench also upheld the validity of a State Government Order authorising Inspectors of the Anti-Corruption Bureau to investigate offences under the Act and took judicial notice of that order as law. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Law is, thus, well-settled that exercise of power conferred by Article 142, in a case such as the present where a minimum sentence is prescribed by the statute, cannot be tinkered, for, the same would amount to legislation by the Court; and, prescription of a term of sentence quite contrary to what the Parliament has legislated would be legally impermissible. The statutory prescription in relation to punishment for a minimum period, unless challenged, cannot be reduced by this Court even in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.” While the Bench held that Article 142 could not be used to reduce a statutory minimum sentence generally, it exercised appellate discretion to alter the sentence for Section 7: the original two years’ rigorous imprisonment was commuted to one year simple imprisonment, to run concurrently with the one-year sentence for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) (the latter sentence remained unaltered). The Court directed the appellant to surrender within six weeks and stipulated that failure to surrender or pay the fines would recall the altered order and restore the original two-year term.

Background

The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe for making over 7/12 extracts; the Special Court convicted him under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s criminal appeal on 3 September 2024. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged (i) the sanction to prosecute as mechanically granted, (ii) competence of the investigating officer (an Inspector) under Section 17 of the PC Act, (iii) insufficiency of proof of demand in light of the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), and (iv) the credibility of a seizure witness who was related to the complainant. Counsel for the State relied on trial record, answers given by the accused in his Section 313 CrPC examination and the absence of custodial incarceration to oppose interference.

On sanction, the Court found that the sanctioning authority had applied his mind and made minor form corrections to the draft order; it emphasised that sanction required satisfaction about a prima facie case rather than proof of truth. On the competence-of-investigator point, the Court located and quoted a Government Order dated 19 April 1989 that “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,” held that such delegated instrument had the force of law and that the Special Court was entitled to take judicial notice of it. On proof of demand, the Bench upheld the Special Court’s evaluation of evidence (including the appellant’s candid answers under Section 313) and rejected reliance on Neeraj Dutta as inapposite on the facts. The Court also rejected the submission that relationship of a seizure witness with the complainant vitiated the trial, noting that his evidence was not shaken on cross-examination.

The Bench noted settled precedents that minimum statutory sentences could not ordinarily be reduced under Article 142 and refused to follow a coordinate Bench decision that had exercised plenary power in different facts. Observing the appellant’s advanced age, the long pendency of proceedings and the anxiety caused thereby, the Court partially allowed the appeal to reduce the sentence for the Section 7 conviction to one year simple imprisonment while leaving the Section 13 sentence intact; both were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant was directed to surrender within six weeks and comply with the fines, failing which the original two-year sentence would revive. The appeal stood partly allowed.

Case No.: REPORTABLE 2025 INSC 654 Case Title: Dashrath v. The State of Maharashtra Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Advocate General/State Counsel