Rs 500 bribery case ends after 36 years; Supreme Court upholds conviction, reduces sentence

A bribery case involving just Rs 500 against an excise official finally concluded after several decades, with the legal proceedings stretching across three levels of the judiciary. The case took 16 years in a trial court, six years in the Uttarakhand High Court, and 14 years in the Supreme Court before reaching its final verdict. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the official’s conviction and sentenced him to one year in jail.

The case dates back to June 1990, when the excise official was caught accepting a Rs 500 bribe, following which a case was registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. After prolonged proceedings, a trial court in March 2006 found him guilty and sentenced him to two years of imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 2,000 under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for criminal misconduct.

The official challenged the verdict in the Uttarakhand High Court, which disposed of the matter in April 2012 after six years. The High Court dismissed his appeal and upheld both the conviction and the sentence handed down by the trial court.


The case then moved to the Supreme Court, where the appeal remained pending for 14 years. First heard in August 2012, the matter was listed before different benches on 21 occasions during this period.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and P B Varale eventually delivered the final judgment, affirming the conviction recorded by the lower courts. However, taking into account the age of the accused, now 75 years old, the apex court reduced his punishment to the minimum sentence of one year under the law.

“We are of the opinion that the trial court as well as high court, on appreciation of evidence, committed no error in holding the appellant guilty for the offences committed under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of PC Act. As such, the interference of this court insofar as conviction being recorded by the trial court and upheld by the high court is not warranted, but at the same time, considering the circumstances, namely, the appellant was of the age of approximately 40 years at the time of offence in question and now, he is approximately 75 years of age... we are of the opinion that the sentence awarded by the trial court and upheld by the high court can be modified to the extent of minimum sentence for the said offences,” the bench said in its order.

[With TOI inputs]