Salig Ram Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi — Corruption | Delhi HC (2026)

Salig Ram Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi — Corruption | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal declined against the Judgment dated 31.03.2011 upholding the conviction; however, sentence modified in the appellant's favour - period already undergone during trial taken as substantial punishment and fine enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- (prior deposit, if any, deductible; balance payable to the Trial Court within a week). Appeal and pending application(s) disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

What sentence should be imposed on the appellant, who did not assail his conviction and prayed that the period already undergone be taken as punishment, relying on his age (over 70), about 21 years of trial, exoneration in departmental proceedings and loss of medical/pensionary benefits? +1 more

Court's answer

On sentence, the period already undergone by the appellant during the trial is taken into account as substantial punishment.

Ratio / Principle

The conviction stands: the appeal is declined insofar as the Judgment dated 31.03.2011 is concerned, and that judgment is upheld.

Key takeaways

The fine of Rs. 5,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-; if the appellant has already deposited Rs. 5,000/- it shall be deducted, otherwise the whole amount shall be deposited with the Trial Court within a week.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) - sentencing - appellant convicted for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 1,500/- (Rs. 1,000/- recovered by Raiding Party) - conviction under judgment dated 31.03.2011 not assailed and upheld - on sentence, Court considered appellant's age (71 years), criminal trial lasting about 21 years, age-related ailments, exoneration in departmental proceedings yet denial of medical and pensionary benefits, and lack of prosecution reservation - custodial sentence modified: period already undergone during trial taken as substantial punishment - fine enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-, prior deposit (if any) deductible, balance to be deposited with Trial Court within a week - appeal (CRL.A. 627/2011, Del HC, Vimal Kumar Yadav, J., 17.04.2026) disposed of accordingly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 17^th April, 2026

IN THE MATTER OF:

CRL.A. 627/2011 & CRL.M.A. 38758/2025

SALIG RAM .....Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Sr. Adv with Mr. Tarun Khanna, Mr. Harjas Singh Chhatwal, Mr. Chander Vijay Sharma, Mr. Ammar Mustafa & Ms. Annu Gupta, Advs.

versus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for the State.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.

At the outset learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that he does not want to assail the conviction and confines his arguments on the aspect of sentence only and prays that given the fact that the Appellant has crossed 70 years of age, faced the agony of a criminal trial / proceeding for about 21 years and despite the fact that he has been exonerated in the Departmental Proceedings but he would not be entitled to claim medical and pensionary benefits on account of this conviction standing against it, he may therefore, be considered for the lightest possible punishment and preferably the period already undergone in custody by him may be taken into

Signature Not Verified

CRL.A. 627/2011 Page 1 of 3

Signed By:ASHOK KUMAR CHOUHAN Signing Da te:1 8.04.2026 15:58:30

consideration as the punishment. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the following judgments in this context:

i) M/s A.K. Sarkar & CO. & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. in SLP (Criminal) No. 6095 of 2018; and

ii) STATE (G.N.C.T.) OF DELHI vs Mohit Kumar & Anr. in Crl.A No. 541/2009.

Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that the offence involves financial angle, therefore, this aspect may be kept in consideration while considering the aspect of sentence apart from the fact that corruption should not be taken lightly.

The Appellant was convicted under Section 7 and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘POCA’) as he was found guilty of demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 1,500/-, out of which Rs. 1,000/- was received by him, which was recovered by the Raiding Party. The other formalities confirmed the complicity which ultimately resulted into his conviction.

In these circumstances, in order to make the Appellant realize his folly, it seems appropriate that the financial aspect of the sentence may be enhanced. Therefore taking into account the entire gamut of facts and circumstances, the appeal so far as the Judgment dated 31.03.2011 is concerned, the same is upheld and appeal stands declined to that extent.

Having considered the submissions made by the contesting sides, the judgment relied and the fact that the Appellant has turned 71 years of age, undergone the turmoil of a criminal trial for more than two decades, a substantial part of an individual’s life, suffering from various age related ailments, therefore, when the prosecution too has sort of no reservation qua the proposition floated by the learned Senior Advocate, and that the

CRL.A. 627/2011 Page 2 of 3

Signature Not Verified Signed By:ASHOK KUMAR CHOUHAN Signing Da te:1 8.04.2026 15:58:30

custodial sentence would likely to be a burden on State Exchequer, so it needs to be given indulgence.

So far as the aspect of sentence is concerned, it stands modified as the period already undergone by him during the trial is taken into account as substantial punishment, whereas the fine of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon him stands enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- and in case the Appellant has already deposited the sum of Rs. 5,000/-, the same shall be deducted from the fine awarded now, otherwise the whole amount shall be deposited with the Trial Court within a week from today.

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s) also stands disposed of.

VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J

APRIL 17, 2026/ hk

Signature Not Verified

CRL.A. 627/2011 Page 3 of 3

Signed By:ASHOK KUMAR CHOUHAN Signing Da te:1 8.04.2026 15:58:30