Allowed

Prabhat Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P.through C.B.I.

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2023CRLA/118/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the criminal appeal to the extent of modifying the sentence. Upholding the conviction for corruption and criminal conspiracy, the court reduced the imprisonment term to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine to Rs. 42,500, citing long delay and the appellant's age.

What did the court decide?

Imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fine of Rs. 2,500 enhanced to Rs. 42,500.

Prabhat Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U.P.through C.B.I. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 118 of 1998

¶3

Appellant :- Prabhat Kumar Agarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through C.B.I. Counsel for Appellant :- Nandit Srivastava,Pranjal Krishna Counsel for Respondent :- U.K.Dhaon,Bireshwar Nath,Shiv P. Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Sri Nandit Kumar Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Panjal Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent-C.B.I.

¶6

The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.02.1998 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption (C) , U.P., Lucknow in Case No. 8 of 1969, State v. (i) Parmatma Swaroop Maheshwari, (ii) Prabhat Kumar Agarwal, convicting both the accused persons for commission of offences under section 120B, I.P.C. and 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, punishable under section 5(2) of the aforesaid Act. The applicant was sentenced to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) under section 120B, I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) and Rs. 2500/- as fine under section 120B, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶7

The appeal is pending since 1998 and the other accused person Parmatma Swaroop Maheshwari died.

¶8

Sri Nandit Kumar Srivastava, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that keeping in view the fact that the offence took place between the period 1961-66. The C.B.I. had lodged the case in the year 1969 and presently the appellant is aged about 81 years, he confines his submissions to the prayer for reducing the sentence only.

¶9

In the case of V.K. Verma v. C.B.I., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 485 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a criminal appeal filed in the year 2014, arising out of an incident alleged to have taken place on 21.12.1984. The appellant in the aforesaid case had been trapped while demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 265.00 and he had been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one-and-ahalf years and with a fine of Rs. 5000.00. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the long delay before the courts in taking a final decision with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the accused is one of the mitigating factors for the superior courts to take into consideration while taking a decision on the quantum of sentence. The Court further observed that the appellant was aged about 76 years, the offence was of the year 1984 and three decades had elapsed since then. Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed that "whether at this age and stage, it would not be economically wasteful and a liability of the State to keep the appellant in prison, is the question we have to address."

¶10

The Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that "Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, are of the view that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence, but enhancing the fine while maintaining the conviction."

¶11

Sri Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent-C.B.I. submits that in case the Court is taking a sympathetic view, fine imposed should be enhanced to balance the equity.

¶12

Keeping in view the facts that the offence took place between the years 1961 to 1966, i.e., about six decades ago; that the F.I.R. was lodged in the year 1965; that the appeal is pending since the year 1998, i.e., for two-and-a-half decades; that the

¶13

appellant is presently aged about 81 years, as also keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Verma (supra), I am of the view that it would be a liability on the State to keep the appellant in prison, causing financial burden on the State Exchequer and it will neither serve as a reformative measure, nor as a deterrent for the appellant.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid discussion the instant appeal is allowed only so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant and the quantum of punishment is modified so as to make it imprisonment for the period already undergone by the appellant, and the fine of Rs. 2500.00 is enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 40,000.00 (Forty thousand only), which will be deposited by the appellant within a period of four weeks before the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Central U.P., Lucknow.

¶15

In case, the appellant fails to make the requisite deposit, the C.B.I. shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application before this court.

¶16

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )

¶17

Order Date :- 21.4.2023 A.Nigam

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prabhat Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P.through C.B.I.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhat Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P.through C.B.I.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Mohd. Tariq Vs the State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Nawazish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Laksaman Swaroop Maheshwari Vs State of U.P.

Satya Swarup Maheshwari Vs State of U.P. through C.B.I.

Smt. Sheela Rani Vs State of U.P.