K.L. BAKOLIA versus STATE THROUGH DIRECTOR, C.B.L~"V
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 201, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[2015) 7 S.C.R. 201 
K.L. BAKOLIA 
v. 
STATE THROUGH DIRECTOR, C.B.l~"v: 
(Criminal Appeal No. 797 of 2015) _ 
MAY 15, 2015 
[T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s. 7 ands. 13(2) rl 
A 
B 
w s. 13(1 )(d)-Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification c 
- Conviction of accused-appellant -Justification - Held: In 
view of concurrent findings of the courts below that there was 
evidence to show that there was a demand and the 
complainant paid the bribe amount to the appellant who 
accepted the same, interference with the conviction order not D 
called for- However, since the incident took place 19 years 
ago and the appellant being 7 4 years old and having 
undergone the agony of criminal proceedings for all these 
years, sentence imposed upon him reduced from 4 years RI 
to 1 year RI in the interest of justice- Sentence I Sentencing. 
E 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. For coming to the finding of guilt for the 
offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of F 
Corruption Act, 1988, firstly, there must be a demand and 
secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that 
the accused received illegal gratification. Courts below 
recorded concurrent findings that there was evidence 
on record to substantiate the fact that there was a G 
demand and the complainant paid the bribe amount to 
the appellant who has accepted the same. Courts below 
also recorded concurrent findings that there is no reason 
to discredit the
testimony of the complainant (PW4) and 
H 
201
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A Inspector of Police (PW7). Defence plea of the accused 
that the currency notes were put under the sofa without 
his knowledge was rightlx rejected by the courts below. 
Conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and Section 
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of 
B Corruption Act, 1988 is unassailable. [Para 9] [205-H; 206-
A-C] 
,. 
2. In this appeal, notice was issued only limited to 
the question of sentence. The appellant was sentenced 
C to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years on 
each count of conviction under Section 7 and Section 
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 and the sentence imposed was 
ordered to run concurrently. The incident had taken 
D place in the year 1996 about nineteen years ago and for 
all these years the appellant has undergone the agony 
of criminal proceedings. Keeping in view the passage 
of time and that the appellant is now aged seventy four 
years, while upholding the conviction of the appellant, 
E interest of justice would be met by reducing the sentence 
of rigorous imprisonment of four years to one year 
rigorous imprisonment [Para 10) [206-D-E] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
F Appeal No. 797 of 2015. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2013 of the 
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Appeal No. 207 of 
2003. 
Vibha Datta Makhija, Suirender Kumar Gupta, Mayank 
Yada, Disha Singh for the Appellant.
Dhruv Sheoram, M. Khairati, Kumar Parimal, B. V. 
H Bala ram Das for the Respondent.
K.L. BAKOLIA v. STATE THROUGH DIRECTOR, C.B.I. 
203 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment 
passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal App,;-al No.207 / 8 
2003 dated 11.7.2013, in and by which, the High Court 
confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 
and Section 13(2) read with Sectinn 13(1 )(d) ofthe Prevention 
of Corruption Act, 1988 and the sentence imposed ·on him. 
3. Shamsher Singh-complainant (PW4) is. the sole C 
proprietor of Mis. Colonel's Security Services working on 
. contract for providing security staff to Indian Agricultural 
Research Institute (IARI), Pusa, New Delhi on annual basis 
from 1.03.1993 which was subsequently renewed from year 0 
to year basis upto 31.03.1996 and the contract was due for 
renewal on 1.04.1996. Complainant stated that on 2.04.1996 
when he contacted the appellant for renewal of hls contract 
and payment of his outstanding dues, the appellant demanded 
Rs.50,000/- as a bribe for renewal of contract and when E 
complainant stated that he was not in a position to pay 
Rs.50,000/-, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.20,000/- and 
the complainant was asked to meet the appellant on 3.04.1996 
and pay the bribe amount. Complainant was not interested 
in paying the bribe and on the same day he went to CBI office F 
and narrated the facts. The complainant was asked to come 
on the next day with Rs.20,000/L by CBI
officer. In the evening 
of 3.04.1996, the appellant rang up the complainant and 
inquired him as to why he did not contact him on the said date, 
for which, the complainant replied that he would come to the G 
residence of the appellant on the next day between 1.00 to 
2.00p.m. 
· 
0
' 
4. On 4.4.1996, the complainant visited CBJ pffice and 
he was asked to submit his complaint in writing. Based on the. H
204 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A complaint, FIR was registered in RC No.24(A}/96~CBl/ACB/ 
N. Delhi under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1988. Raiding party was constituted and pre-trap proceedings 
were conducted and Rs.20,000/- consisting of forty currency 
notes of rupees five hundred denomination each treated with 
B phenolphthalein powder were given to complainant. As the 
complainant alone was supposed to go and contact the 
appellant, a two piece recorder consisting of recorder and mic-
cum-transmitter along with audio cassette was put in the pocket 
of the complainant. A further direction was given to the 
C complainant to give signal to the trap party by saying 'Gin 
Leejiye'. -
5. The complainant and the trap party went to Pusa 
Complex at about 1.45 p.m. The complainant after switching 
D on the mic-cum-transmitter went inside the house of the 
appellant who welcomed him. The appellant inquired from the 
complainant 'Laye Ho' and the complainant replied in the 
affirmative. When complainant gave the bribe amount of 
Rs.20,000/- to the appellant, he raised the cushion of the sofa 
E and asked the complainant to keep the money under the cushion 
of the sofa. As the complainant insisted thatthe money should 
be handed over in the hand, the complainant took the tainted 
money in his right hand and kept it under the cushion of his 
F sofa. The complainant gave the signal 'Gin Leejiye'where after 
the CBI officials rushed into the drawing
room of the appellant 
and questioned him about the bribe money and the appellant 
was perplexed and kept mum. On instructions from the officer, 
PW6 lifted the cushion of the sofa and the trap money was 
G recovered .. Wash of both the hands of the appellant in the 
sodium carbonate solution turned· pink: Trap laying officer 
prepared the seizure memo and completed other formalities 
of trap proceedings. After completion of investigation, 
chargesheet was filed against the appellant under Section 7 
H and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d} of the Prevention
K.L. BAKOLIA v. STATE THROUGH DIRECTOR, C.B.I. 
205 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). 
A 
6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the 
prosecution has examined ten witnesses. Upon consideration 
of the evidence, learned Special Judge convicted the appellant 
under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1 )(d) B 
of the Act and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for a period of four years on each count with a 
fine of Rs.500/- each with default clause. Aggrieved by the 
conviction, the appellant filed appeal before the High Court of 
Delhi and vide impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed C 
the conviction of the appellant and also the sentence and the 
fine imposed on him. This appeal assails the correctness of 
the same. 
7. We have heard Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, learned D 
Senior Counsel for the appellant, who submitted that the initial 
demand was not proved by the prosecution which is evident 
from the self-contradictory version of the complainant and in 
the light of contradictory statement of witnesses, recovery has 
become highly doubtful and the courts below erred in convicting 
E · 
the appellant for the alleged receipt of illegal gratification. The 
learned counsel inter-alia submitted that the occurrence was . 
in the year 1996 and the appellant is now aged seventy four 
years and prayed for leniency. 
F 
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent 
contended that the prosecution has
proved the demand and 
acceptance of the illegal gratification by the appellant and upon 
appreciation of evidence, courts below rightly convicted the 
appellant and the concurrent findings warrant no interference. G 
9. For coming to the finding of guilt for the offeace under 
Section 13(1 )(d) of the Act, firstly, there must be a demand 
and secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that the 
accused received illegal gratification. Courts below recorded H
·. 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R 
A concurrent findings that there was evidence on record to 
substantiate the fact that there was a demand and the 
complainant paid the bribe,amount to the appellant who has 
accepted the same. Courts below also recorded concurrent 
findings that there is no reason to discredit the testimony of 
B the complainant (PW4) and Inspector of Police-AK. Kapoor 
(PW7). Defence plea of the accused that the currency notes 
were put under the sofa without his knowledge was rightly 
rejected by the courts below. Conviction of the appellant under 
Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the 
C Act is unassailable. 
10. In this appeal, notice was issued only limited to the 
question of sentence. The appellant was sentenced to undergo 
rigorous imprisonment for four years on each count of conviction 
D under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1 )(d) 
of the Act and the sentence imposed was ordered to run 
concurrently. The incident had taken place in the year 1996 
about nineteen years ago and for all these years the appellant 
has undergone the agony of criminal proceedings. Keeping 
E in view the passage of time and that the appellant is now aged 
seventy four years, in our view, while upholding the conviction 
of the appellant, interest of justice would be met by reducing 
the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of four years to one 
F year rigorous imprisonment. Application for exemption from 
surrendering
was allowed by the Chamber Judge on 
20.09.2013, which was.Rubsequently continued until further 
orders by this Court's order dated 25.11.2013. Necessary 
steps be taken forthwitt;i.to take the appellant into custody to 
G serve out the remaining part of the modified sentence. 
H 
Judgment of the High Court is accordingly modified and this 
appeal is.allowed in part. 
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose 
Appeal partly allowed.