CRL.A. No. 1134 of 2003                                                                                        REPORTABLE 1

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1134 OF 2003   

 RAMRAO LIMBAJI GARUD   ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARSHTRA   ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable  

under  Section 161  of the  Indian Penal  code and  Section  

5(1)(d)  read  with  Section  5(2)  of  th  Prevention  of  

Corruption Act, 1947.  The trial court vide its judgment  

dated 5th January  1990 acquitted the accused.  An appeal  

was thereafter taken by the State of Maharashtra to the  

High Court and the High Court by its judgment dated 26th  

March,  2003  reversed  the  judgment  of  acquittal  and  

convicted the accused under Section 161 of the Indian Penal  

Code and ordered  him to pay a fine  of Rs. 2000/- and in  

default to

CRL.A. No. 1134 of 2003                                                                                        REPORTABLE 2

suffer one month rigorous imprisonment  and a sentence of  

three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under  

Section 5(1)d and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act  

and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment  

to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.   

2. Aggrieved by the order of conviction the appellant is  

before us in the present appeal by way of special leave.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. We  find  that  the  Special  Judge  had  rendered  a  

somewhat confused judgment acquitting the appellant without  

discussing the ocular evidence and the documents on record.  

The High Court has on the contrary discussed the evidence  

denovo as the Special Judge had not done his job properly  

and  on  consideration  of  the  evidence,  has  reversed  the  

judgment of the Special Judge.   

5. We are in this situation not inclined to interfere in  

the appellant's conviction.  However, keeping in view the  

fact that the incident had happened in the year 1985 and  

the litigation has gone on for more than 25 years and in  

the  light  of  the judgment of this Court in Dharam Vir v.

CRL.A. No. 1134 of 2003                                                                                        REPORTABLE 3

State  of  U.P. reported  in  1994  Suppl.  (1)  SCC  100,  we  

reduce  the  sentence  of  imprisonment  to  that  already  

undergone by the appellant.

6. Bail bonds stand discharged.

7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

       ........................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ........................J      [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI AUGUST 18, 2010.