(J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.)
Sopan _________________________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Maharashtra ____________________________ Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No…………..of 2026 [@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No………. of 2026] [Diary No. 12248 of 2026], decided on July 23, 2026
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is filed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay affirming the conviction of the appellant by the Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special (ACB) Case No. 1 of 2005 under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881. The appellant was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under both counts and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively, with default sentence; the substantive sentence ordered to run concurrently.
3. At the time of admission this Court by detailed order dated 12.05.2026 found that the concurrent findings recorded by two Courts regarding the guilt of the appellant is not liable to be interfered with. Notice was issued confined to reduction of the sentence from two years of imprisonment to one year.
4. We have once again looked at the merits and found the evidence having been dealt with threadbare by the High Court. The impugned order after considering the evidence led before the Trial Court, found so in paragraph 27, which is extracted below:
“27. The evidence on record demonstrates, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 500/-from the complainant. The testimonies of the complainant and independent witnesses, corroborated by scientific tests and proper documentation, satisfy the requirements for establishing offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act. The procedural compliance regarding sanction and conduct of the trap has been duly proved.”
5. We reiterate that there is no reason to interfere with the said findings. However, we are of the opinion that considering the quantum of illegal gratification and the fact that the offence occurred in the year 2004, the sentence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) can be reduced to six months and one year; the statutory minimum at that stage, both of rigorous imprisonment, to run concurrently. The fine as ordered by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is confirmed and so would the default sentence stand as it is; but one of simple imprisonment.
6. The appeal stands allowed to the limited extent of reducing the sentence as ordered hereinabove.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 12248/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-12-2025 in CRA No. 306/2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur]
Sopan.….Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Maharashtra.….Respondent(s)
IA No. 128167/2026 – Condonation of Delay in Refiling/Curing the Defects
IA No. 128166/2026 – Exemption From Filing C/C of the Impugned Judgment
IA No. 128165/2026 – Exemption From Filing O.T.
IA No. 128164/2026 – Exemption From Surrendering Within Time
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appeal is allowed to the limited extent of reducing the sentence in terms of the signed order which is placed on the file.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
1 For brevity, “the PC Act”
