Judgment : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Heard Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the Central Bureau of Investigation. 2. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 6.11.1998 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, U.P. (East), Dehradun in C.B.I. Case No. 10 of 1993, whereby the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution, are that the appellant before this Court, namely, K.K. Bansal while functioning as a Branch Manager of Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank, Jhajhara, Dehradun was charged by Central Bureau of Investigation under Section 120B/420/468/471 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with corresponding Section of the old Act i.e. Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d). It must be stated at this juncture that since this matter pertains to a period preceding 1988 apart from other facts which are applicable in this case what is applicable are the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 read with Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1942. In other words, Prevention of Corruption Act as it was prior to 1988. 4. The charge against the appellant was that while functioning as a Branch Manager he entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Rakesh Kumar, a part-time messenger of the bank, his father Ram Bharose and some unknown persons during the period which is 1986-87, in order to cheat the bank. As a part of said criminal conspiracy the appellant sanctioned a loan of 4,000/- on 3.2.1986 in favour of a non-existent person. Prior to sanctioning of the said loan, due procedure which ought to have been adopted by the bank such as a pre-sanction survey and verification of the genuineness of the borrower was not done. Many of the signatures were also forged. Similarly, a loan of 4,800/- was sanctioned on 3.2.1986 again in favour of a non-existent person with similar method as above. Thereafter, a loan of 5,000/- was sanctioned on 17.7.1986 in favour of a non-existent person without conducting pre-sanction survey and without verifying the genuineness of the borrower. Many of the signatures were also forged. Similarly, a loan of 4,800/- was sanctioned on 3.2.1986 again in favour of a non-existent person with similar method as above. Thereafter, a loan of 5,000/- was sanctioned on 17.7.1986 in favour of a non-existent person without conducting pre-sanction survey and without verifying the genuineness of the borrower. Apart from the aforesaid, accused/appellant K.K. Bansal also forwarded a false claim on 24.3.1987 to the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Dehradun. As per the prosecution, accused K.K. Bansal also sanctioned a loan of ` 5,000/- in favour of a non-existent person on 13.11.1986 without following the due procedure, as stated above. Thereafter, accused K.K. Bansal sanctioned a loan of ` 5,000/- on 6.4.1987 again in favour of a non-existent person on the basis of forged signatures on the loan documents and the affidavit filed in support of loan application. 5. The learned trial court after hearing the entire evidence submitted by the prosecution and minutely examining the records of the case has come to a categorical conclusion that the prosecution has been able to successfully prove beyond any reasonable doubt charges under Section 120B/420/468/471 IPC as well as Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently the appellant was sentenced one year’s R.I. and a fine of 2,000/- under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, six months’ R.I. and a fine of 500/- under Section 120 B I.P.C., one year R.I. and a fine of 500/- under Section 420 IPC, one year R.I. and a fine of 500/- under Section 468 IPC and one year R.I. and a fine of 500/- under Section 471 I.P.C. 6. This appeal was filed in the year 1998 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which stood transferred before this Court under Section 35 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act. After having gone through the records of the case as well as the judgment of the trial court, it is very difficult for this Court to form any other opinion as the one formed by the trial court or to give different conclusion as regarding the conviction of the appellant. This Court, therefore, upholds the conviction of the accused under Section 120B/420/468/471 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 7. This Court, therefore, upholds the conviction of the accused under Section 120B/420/468/471 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 7. All the same, some peculiar facts have been brought before this Court which relate to the present medical condition of the accused. His left leg has been amputated. The medical certificates and reports submitted by the counsel for the appellant show that the appellant is 55 years of age and is “suffering from Quadriparesis? Polyrensopathy? Dementia # neck femur & femur shaft” and he is unable to walk and his general condition is unsatisfactory. 8. Vide order dated 6.1.2012 this Court had directed the Chief Medical Officer, Dehradun to medically examine accused/appellant K.K. Bansal. The accused/appellant was examined by a team of doctor consisting of a senior physician, senior ortho-surgeon and a mental illness specialist. The report of the medical team is as under :- “From orthopaedic point of view he can go to anywhere on wheel chair with the help of attendant, he is not suffering from any psychiatric disorder at present, and he can move around with support and required regular physiotherapy.” 9. It appears that the medical team examined the appellant with the sole purpose of certifying as to whether he is fit to be present in the Court or not. That seems to be the purpose. Today, however, the appellant is present in the Court. His condition is not different from what has been stated in the medical certificate. 10. He has already suffered enough. He has lost his job and although he has a family to support, this Court has also been informed that he is also not getting any pensionary benefits, out of the service he had rendered. 11. In view of the peculiar conditions of the appellant and the fact that the matter is extremely old pertaining to the year 1986-87, when the conviction and sentence was imposed and the occurrence itself is of more than 25 years back, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence. It is also noticed by the Court that the accused is without job and presently approaching 60 years of age. It is also noticed by the Court that the accused is without job and presently approaching 60 years of age. I therefore convert the sentence of one year’s R.I. under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to that of a sentence which the appellant shall undergo till the rising of the Court, sentence of six months’ R.I. under Section 120 B I.P.C. to that of sentence which the appellant shall undergo till the rising of the Court, sentence of one year R.I. under Section 420 IPC to that of a sentence which the appellant shall undergo till the rising of the Court, Sentence of one year R.I. under Section 468 IPC to that of sentence which the appellant shall undergo till the rising of the Court and sentence of one year R.I. under Section 471 I.P.C. to that of sentence which the appellant shall undergo till the rising of the Court. The fine of 2,000/- under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 500/- under Section 120 B IPC, 500/- under Section 420 IPC, 500/- under Section 468 IPC and 500/- under Section 471 IPC shall, however, be maintained and shall be paid by the appellant within a period of six months from today. 12. It must be stated here that while reducing the sentence of the appellant under these special circumstances mentioned above, this Court has relied upon two judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The first is, B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration (1974) 3 SCC 85 and the second is, T.M. Joseph v. State of Kerala 1993 Supp (1) 465, where the Hon’ble Apex Court while reducing the sentence had observed that “appellant suffered agony and the harassment of the proceedings for over seven years and that he is also going to lose his job and has to earn for himself and his family members and for those dependent on him and, therefore, to meet the ends of justice the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.” 13. Consequent to the above directions, this Court confirms the conviction of the accused, yet the sentence is reduced to the extent as stated above. However, the fine as awarded by the trial court is maintained. Consequent to the above directions, this Court confirms the conviction of the accused, yet the sentence is reduced to the extent as stated above. However, the fine as awarded by the trial court is maintained. It is further clarified that the reduction of the sentence till the rising of the Court which shall run concurrently, shall depend on the deposition of the fine, which shall be made within six months from today. 14. Subject to the aforesaid modification in the judgment and order dated 6.11.1998 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, U.P. (East), Dehradun in C.B.I. Case No. 10 of 1993, criminal appeal stands disposed of. 15. Lower court record be sent back.