- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The only question raised in this appeal is whether the High Court of Delhi acted within the framework of law in exercising power available under Section 433 (c) of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short 'code').
(3.) Factual position giving rise to the appeal is as follows: respondent (also described as 'accused') was prosecuted for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 7, and Section (13) (1) (d) punishable in terms of Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The respondent was found guilty by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years relating to offence under section 7 with fine of Rs. 500/ -. He was further sentenced under Section 13 (2) to undergo imprisonment for 3 and 1/2 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The matter was carried in appeal by the respondent-accused before the High Court. The order of conviction was not challenged at the time of hearing, what was pressed before the High Court related to the quantum of sentence. It was submitted that the appellant had faced ordeal of trial for 11 years and was on the verge of retirement as his date of superannuation was to be in March, 2002. He was not a previous convict and the ends of justice would be met if sentence of fine is enhanced in order to commute the sentence of imprisonment and consequentially recommend to the Government to consider the case under Section 433 of the code. High Court noted that there was no serious opposition by the investigating agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'cbi') for a recommendation.;