- (1.) This criminal appeal arises under the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 read with the provisions of Sec. 161 of the Ranbir Penal Code. One Manoharlal and Umardeen were employed on temporary basis in the office of Community Canning and Fruit Preservation Centre, Jammu. They were discharged after ten months of service. Umardeen was re-employed. Since Manoharlal was not re-employed he approached the appellant for seeking the employment. A sum of Rs. 100.00 was demanded from him as bribe but on persuation the amount was reduced to Rs. 70.00. Rs. 50.00 was to be received by the appellant while Rs. 20.00 was to be paid to one Krishan Chand. Instead of making the payment to the accused persons, the complainant filed an application before the Anti-Corruption Organisation. It was stated by him that the accused had demanded the amount as bribe. The Anti-corruption Organisation laid a trap by associating two independent and one shadow witnesses. The amount was recovered from the accused after the same was paid by the complainant. Mr. D.D. Thakur, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant is a heart patient for which he is undergoing treatment. He has been suffering this ordeal for more than 17 years. He is receiving only subsistence allowance of 50 per cent of his pay which he used to receive in 1976. He is almost reduced to starvation. Besides, he has a daughter of marriageable age and an unemployed son. Therefore, these circumstances would warrant reduction of sentence, more so, having regard to the paltry sum involved in the case. The learned counsel appearing for the State leaves the question of sentence to the Court. The appeal was partly allowed by order dated 5.11.1993 which reads as under : "We have heard learned counsel on both sides. For reasons to be recorded and furnished later, we allow this appeal in part and reduce the sentence to two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. The fine shall be paid within six weeks from today."
(2.) Our reasons for reducing the sentence are as follows: The complaint is of the year 1976. During this long trial till date the appellant has suffered a good deal of mental agony. The appellant has got a daughter of marriageable age and an unemployed son. It is stated that the appellant is a heart patient. We see no reason to disbelieve the statement. Finally, we may add that we cannot lose sight of the fact that the amount involved is only Rs. 50.00 though this fact by itself will not be of material consequence.;