Sentence reduced to statutory minimum for corruption conviction where initial sentence exceeded contemporary legal mandates.

The appellant, a Junior Engineer Level-1 in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Coimbatore, was convicted under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act") and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default sentence of four months' simple imprisonment on both counts; the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

PW2, a contractor, had applied for a service connection on behalf of his wife, and the appellant demanded Rs. 10,000/- in addition to the requisite deposit of Rs. 1,600/-.

PW2 approached the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Coimbatore, which laid a trap in which the appellant was caught red-handed.

PW3, a friend of PW2, corroborated the demand, and PW4, an independent witness, corroborated every aspect of the trap—he witnessed the appellant enquire about the money, count the notes handed over by PW2, and place them in his left trouser pocket.

The trap officer (PW10), upon receiving the signal, recovered the numbered notes from the appellant's left pocket; the test solution applied to the appellant's hands and pocket returned positive results.

The defence of prior enmity—an alleged altercation during a premises inspection—failed because DW1, the appellant's colleague, confirmed the inspection but not the altercation.

Before the Supreme Court, notice was issued on 17.03.2025 limited to the quantum of punishment, though the Court examined the facts in full.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act was sustainable on the evidence on record, notwithstanding the notice being limited to quantum of sentence.

2. Whether the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment warranted reduction to the statutory minimum punishment prevailing at the time of the commission of the offence.

The Court applied Section 7 of the PC Act, which penalises a public servant accepting any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for an official act, and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), which penalises criminal misconduct, i.e., obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing one's position.

Implicit in the Court's reasoning is the settled evidentiary principle that in trap proceedings, proof of the tripartite chain of demand, acceptance, and recovery of the bribe, duly corroborated by independent witnesses, sustains a conviction under the PC Act.

On sentencing, the Court applied the rule that punishment must be determined by the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence; as the offence was committed prior to the enhancement of penalties, the applicable statutory minima were six months' imprisonment under Section 7 and one year's imprisonment under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2).

Despite the limited notice on quantum, the Court scrutinised the conviction on merits and found an unbroken evidentiary chain: PW2 deposed to the demand, the complaint, and the execution of the trap; PW3 corroborated the demand; and PW4, an independent witness, corroborated the trap in its entirety, including the counting of the tainted currency and its placement in the appellant's left trouser pocket.

The recovery of the numbered notes from the appellant's pocket by PW10, coupled with the positive test results on the appellant's hands and pocket, conclusively established acceptance and recovery.

The defence of prior enmity stood disproved because DW1, while confirming the inspection, did not attest to any altercation, negating the theory that PW2 harboured a grudge.

Finding the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court unimpeachable, the Court declined to interfere with the conviction. On sentence, the Court noted that the punishment prevailing at the time of the offence carried statutory minima of six months (Section 7) and one year (Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)), and held that the facts warranted only the imposition of the statutory minimum, thereby reducing the sentence accordingly while leaving the fine and default sentence undisturbed.

The substantive sentence was modified to the statutory minimum: six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2). The fine of Rs. 5,000/- and the default sentence of four months' simple imprisonment, as imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, were left intact.