&2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1599 OF 2011 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2816 of 2011)TARSEM LAL VERMA .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUSSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties. The appellant stands convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The trial court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of `500, with default clause, under Section 161 of the Code and rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of `500, with default clause, under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The two sentences were directed to run concurrently. In appeal, the High Court, while maintaining the conviction, reduced the sentences to 1 year rigorous imprisonment on each count. According to the prosecution case, the appellant was working as Picker in the Spare Parts Department of Maruti Udyog Limited. One Naresh Batra, Manager (Spare ....2/- : 2 :Parts) of M/s. Competent Automobiles Co.(P) Ltd. filed acomplaint with SP (CBI) stating that their company hadplaced an order with Maruti Udyog Limited for supply ofsome spare parts against advance payment. It was allegedin the complaint that the appellant approached him anddemanded a bribe of `12,000 stating that in the parcel sentto the Company, he, along with two other Pickers, had putadditional spare parts over and above their order. The
appellant once again approached the Manager and producedtwo slips containing the details of the extra articlespacked in the parcel. Consequently, a trap was laid wherethe appellant was caught red-handed accepting bribe. After having tried to unsuccessfully assail theconviction of the appellant, Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan,learned counsel appearing on his behalf, submitted thatthere were certain special reasons that should persuade theCourt to reduce the appellant's sentence even from thestatutory minimum given to him by the High Court. Shesubmitted that the occurrence took place 23 years ago inthe year 1988 and the appellant has gone through therigours of the criminal trial for all these years. As afallout of the occurrence, the appellant had already losthis job. Further, he has remained in jail now for aboutsix months, that is to say, he has undergone half of thesentence given to him. ....3/- : 3 : In support of the submission for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, she relied upon a decision of this Court in Aditya Nath Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2000) 9 SCC 206. On hearing counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. We, accordingly, do so. The fines imposed on him under the two sections are left undisturbed. In case, the appellant has already deposited the amount of fines, he would be released forthwith, otherwise, on payment of the amount of fines. The criminal appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
..................J (AFTAB ALAM) ..................J (R.M. LODHA)NEW DELHI,AUGUST 16, 2011.ITEM NO.48 COURT NO.10 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2816/2011(From the judgement and order(s) in CRLA No. 59/2002 dated 25-MAR-11of the HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI)TARSEM LAL VERMA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail and office report)Date: 16/08/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHAFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Adv. Ms. Sushasini Sen, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kriplani, Adv. Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Chandra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. (NP) Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The criminal appeal is disposed of. (N.S.K. Kamesh) (S.S.R. Krishna) Court Master Court Master (signed order is placed on the file)
^ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.12 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2816/2011(From the judgement and order dated 25/03/2011 in CRLA No. 59/2002 ofthe HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI)TARSEM LAL VERMA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI) Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned Judgment,bail and office report)WithCrl.M.P. No. 7746 of 2011(appln. for impleadment)Date: 11/04/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHAFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kripalani, Adv. Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv. Mr. Sunil Murarka, Adv. Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Crl.M.P. No. 7746/2011 Application for impleadment allowed. SLP (Crl.) No. 2816/2011 Counsel for the petitioner submits that since PW-1 (the complainant) and PW-4 (one of the trap witnesses) had turned hostile, there was no sufficient basis to sustain .....2/- : 2 :the conviction of the petitioner. In support of thesubmission, she relied upon a decision of this Court inBanarsi Dass v. State of Haryana, (2010) 4 SCC 450. Issue notice in the special leave petition as alsoon the application for bail. (N.S.K. Kamesh) (S.S.R. Krishna) Court Master Court Master