- (1.)Leave granted.
Satish Kumar Bhalla, Appellant in Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3535 of 2014 was convicted for offences punishable Under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. For the offence punishable Under Sec. 7 of the said Act he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three and a half years besides fine of Rs. 15,000/ -. In default of payment of fine he as directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. For the offence punishable Under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/ -. In default of payment he was sentenced to undergo further simple imprisonment of 9 months. The sentences awarded to the Appellant were directed to run concurrently.

In appeal the High Court of Delhi has while upholding the conviction of the Appellant reduced the sentence awarded to him to a period of two years on both counts. The fine imposed on the Appellants as also the default sentence however remained unaltered.

(2.)When the appeal filed by Satish Kumar Bhalla came up before us on 2nd May 2014 we issued notice to the Respondent limited to the question of quantum of sentence only. We have accordingly heard learned Counsel for the parties on that question.
(3.)In the connected appeal filed by Kailash Nath and Ramesh Kumar, Appellants in criminal appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3681 of 2014, the Appellants have been convicted by the trial Court for offences punishable Under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years besides fine and default sentence. The High Court has in appeal reduced the sentence of the Appellants in that appeal to 1 1/2 years on both counts with the direction that the sentence shall run concurrently. Fine and default sentence remains unaltered. The sentence of one year imprisonment Under Sec. 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code and fine as also default sentence in case of non -payment of fine have also not been touched by the High Court. Having heard Mr. Luthra, learned Counsel for Kailash Nath and Ramesh Kumar, we are of the view that there is no reason much less a compelling reason for us to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The conviction of the Appellants in all these appeals thus stand affirmed. The only question before us is whether sentence awarded to the Appellants can be reduced. It was contended by M/s. Luthra and Parekh, Senior Counsel for the Appellants that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence awarded to the Appellants could be reduced to the statutory minimum of one year. There is, in our opinion, merit to that submission. The case in hand is of the year 1995. The bribe amount is said to be Rs. 3,500/ -. The Appellants have faced prosecution, conviction and resultant trauma and harassment for the past nearly 20 years. It is obvious that with their convictions affirmed they will stand dismissed from service. In the totality of all these circumstances, we are inclined to allow these appeals to the extent that the sentence awarded to the Appellants shall stand reduced to a period of one year on each count with a direction that the same shall run concurrently. The fine imposed and the sentence awarded in default shall however remain unaltered. The appeals are disposed of with the above directions.