He was further sentenced under Section 13 2 to undergo imprisonment for 3 and years with fine of Rs.1,000/ .
Both the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
The matter was carried in appeal by the respondent accused before the High Court.
The sentence of imprisonment was directed to be suspended on furnishing personal bond and furnishing surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
It was submitted that the appellant had faced ordeal of trial for 11 years and was on the verge of retirement as his date of superannuation was to be in March, 2002.
The order of companyviction was number challenged at the time of hearing.
What was pressed before the High Court related to the quantum of sentence.
J U D G M E N T Arising Out of S.L.P. Crl.
Factual position giving rise to the appeal is as follows Respondent also described as accused was prosecuted for alleged companymission of offence punishable under Section 7, and Section 13 1 d punishable in terms of Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for short the Act .
No.5659 of 2002 ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. Leave granted.
The respondent was found guilty by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years relating to offence under Section 7 with fine of Rs.500/ .
