Full Judgment Text
CRL.A. No. 1134 of 2003 REPORTABLE
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1134 OF 2003
RAMRAO LIMBAJI GARUD ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARSHTRA ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable
under Section 161 of the Indian Penal code and Section
5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of th Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947. The trial court vide its judgment
th
dated 5 January 1990 acquitted the accused. An appeal
was thereafter taken by the State of Maharashtra to the
th
High Court and the High Court by its judgment dated 26
March, 2003 reversed the judgment of acquittal and
convicted the accused under Section 161 of the Indian Penal
Code and ordered him to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in
default to
CRL.A. No. 1134 of 2003 REPORTABLE
2
suffer one month rigorous imprisonment and a sentence of
three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under
Section 5(1)d and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2. Aggrieved by the order of conviction the appellant is
before us in the present appeal by way of special leave.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. We find that the Special Judge had rendered a
somewhat confused judgment acquitting the appellant without
discussing the ocular evidence and the documents on record.
The High Court has on the contrary discussed the evidence
denovo as the Special Judge had not done his job properly
and on consideration of the evidence, has reversed the
judgment of the Special Judge.
5. We are in this situation not inclined to interfere in
the appellant's conviction. However, keeping in view the
fact that the incident had happened in the year 1985 and
the litigation has gone on for more than 25 years and in
the light of the judgment of this Court in Dharam Vir v.
CRL.A. No. 1134 of 2003 REPORTABLE
3
State of U.P. reported in 1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 100, we
reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already
undergone by the appellant.
6. Bail bonds stand discharged.
7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
........................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
........................J
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 18, 2010.