- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appeal has called for an analysis of the penological philosophy behind punishment for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act'). According to W. Friedmann, "The purpose of the penal law is to express a formal social condemnation of forbidden conduct, buttressed by sanctions calculated to prevent it. Implicit in this formulation are three questions, to which different societies give very different answers: First, what kind of conduct is 'forbidden'? Second, what kind of 'formal social condemnation' is considered appropriate to prevent such conduct? Third, what kind of sanctions are considered as best calculated to prevent officially outlawed conduct?"1
(3.) By judgment dated 29.03.2008 of the learned Special Judge (CBI), Delhi in CC No. 194/2001, the Appellant was convicted for the offences Under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and thereafter sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence Under Section 7 with a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 15,000/- Under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. There was a default sentence as well. The sentences were to run concurrently.;