Supreme Court confirms corruption conviction but reduces jail term to time served and raises fine

A bench of Justices N.V. Anjaria and Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal by a former Central Excise inspector challenging the sentence imposed for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The matter concerned a challenge to the sentence imposed by the Special Judge (CBI), Madurai, and confirmed by the Madras High Court, while the appellant ultimately confined her challenge to the quantum of sentence and sought reduction.

The Court confirmed the conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but modified the sentence. It held that, in the totality of facts, the imprisonment already undergone by the appellant was adequate and accordingly reduced the substantive sentence to the period already served; however it enhanced the fine to ₹25,000 to be paid by 10th September, 2025, directing that failure to pay would revive the original sentence. The Court reiterated the principles guiding sentencing and mitigation and noted that long delay and personal circumstances may justify reduction. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court also recorded that "the imprisonment already undergone by her is treated to be adequate sentence."

Background

The appellant served as an Inspector of Central Excise. The prosecution case was that on 16 September 2002 she demanded illegal gratification of ₹300 from a supervisor at Parani Match Factory seeking grant of a fresh central excise registration certificate within her range; the complainant did not accede to the demand and lodged a complaint in late September 2002. The Competent Authority granted sanction to prosecute on 26 March 2003 and the charge-sheet was filed on 7 May 2003. The Special Judge (CBI), Madurai convicted and sentenced the appellant on 5 November 2003; the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, by order dated 4 August 2010, confirmed conviction and sentence. Trial and appellate courts found elements of demand and acceptance proved, relying on witness testimony, documents (Ex. P-2 and P-4) and a sodium carbonate phenolphthalein test which produced a positive result when the accused dipped her hands, a fact noted by both courts.

Before this Court the appellant gave up challenge to conviction and confined the appeal to sentence, urging mitigation based on the long lapse of time since the incident (over two decades), advanced age (then about 75 years), widowhood, belonging to a scheduled caste and that she had undergone 31 days' imprisonment. The Supreme Court reviewed its consistent precedents that have treated prolonged delay, age, ill-health, loss of employment and small amounts of gratification as relevant mitigating factors (citing M.W. Mohiuddin v. State of Maharashtra; Bechaarbhai S. Prajapati v. State of Gujarat; Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall v. State of Gujarat and others). Applying those principles, the Court found that the passage of time and personal circumstances constituted sufficient mitigation to reduce the substantive sentence to the period already served, while increasing the monetary penalty. The appeal was dismissed insofar as conviction was concerned but allowed in part on sentence. The Court directed that if the fine of ₹25,000 was not paid by 10 September 2025, the original sentence would revive and the appellant would be liable to surrender.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1716 of 2011 Case Title: K. Pounammal v. State represented by Inspector of Police Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy (advocate) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria (advocate)