JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant (for brevity “the appellant”) against the judgment dated 18.04.1988 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur, Rajasthan (for brevity “the learned trial Court”) in Special Criminal Case No.6/1985 whereby, while convicting him under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”), he has been sentenced as under:- (i). under Section 161 IPC:-1 year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-; in default thereof, 3 months’ simple imprisonment. (ii). Under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947:-1 year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-; in default thereof, three months’ simple imprisonment. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that on a written compliant dated 31.10.1984 (Exhibit-P-1) filed by Shri Rajveer Singh, an FIR No.52/1984 (Exhibit-P-14) came to be registered against the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of Act of 1947 wherein, it was alleged that for subjecting the complainant to medical examination for his regular appointment in the North Western Railway, Kota, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.800/-towards the illegal gratification. As per the prosecution case, the appellant was caught red-handed on 01.11.1984 accepting a bribe of Rs.500/-. After investigation, the investigating agency filed charge-sheet against the appellant under the aforesaid provisions. Vide order dated 22.07.1985, the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of Act of 1947. After conducting trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits, at the threshold, that he does not press this criminal appeal on its merit. He, however, submits that since, the appellant is aged about 76 years and is facing trauma of this criminal case for last about 39 years, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence awarded to him be modified. He submits that while waiving the substantive sentence, the fine may be enhanced suitably and appropriately. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon following judgments of a Coordinate Bench of this Court:- (i). Omendra Dutt Sharma versus The State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Appeal No.462/1985 decided on 15.02.2023. (ii). He submits that while waiving the substantive sentence, the fine may be enhanced suitably and appropriately. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon following judgments of a Coordinate Bench of this Court:- (i). Omendra Dutt Sharma versus The State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Appeal No.462/1985 decided on 15.02.2023. (ii). Jangli Ram versus The State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Appeal No.336/1986 decided on 05.05.2023. 3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor did not seriously oppose the prayer in view of life of the case and advance age of the appellant. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. Their Lordships have held in the cases of, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0015/2012: (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. MANU/SC/1627/1998: (1998) 9 SCC 678 as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances." Haripada Das (Supra) "...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..." 6. A coordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Ramlal versus the State of Rajasthan, 1982 (7) Rajasthan Criminal Cases 120, held as under:- “In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused appellant both under Section 161 IPC and 5 (1) (d) read with 6 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act are set aside. The accused appellant is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 600/-under section 161 IPC and also to a fine of Rs. 600/-under Section 5/ (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused appellant is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 600/-under section 161 IPC and also to a fine of Rs. 600/-under Section 5/ (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months each in default of payment of fine on both the counts. Two month's time is allowed to deposit the fine in the trial Court. In case the amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to serve out the sentences awarded to the accused in default of payment of fine.” 7. In case of Omendra Dutt Sharma (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court has, in identical facts, while partly allowing the appeal and maintaining the conviction of the appellant, set aside the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him with enhancement of fine. 8. Yet in another case of Jangli Ram (supra), the same coordinate Bench, while considering age of the appellant who was about 70 years at the time of decision and pendency of criminal case for more than 40 years, while maintaining conviction of the accused-appellant, set aside the substantive sentence of imprisonment enhancing the fine component. 9. In the present case also, as per the age of the appellant recorded in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the present age of the appellant is about 75 years and he is facing trauma of this criminal case for last about 39 years. In view thereof and in the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law, this Court deems it just and proper to partly allow the appeal. 10. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 18.04.1988, the substantive sentence awarded to him under Section 161 IPC as also under Sections 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 is set aside. The fine of Rs.200/-awarded under Section 161 IPC is enhanced to Rs.2,000/-and fine of Rs.200/-awarded under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 is also enhanced to Rs.2,000/-, in default whereof, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of one month for each offences. The fine of Rs.200/-awarded under Section 161 IPC is enhanced to Rs.2,000/-and fine of Rs.200/-awarded under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 is also enhanced to Rs.2,000/-, in default whereof, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of one month for each offences. Two months’ time is granted to the appellant to deposit the aforesaid fine with the learned trial Court failing which the learned trial Court shall take necessary steps to serve out the sentence awarded to the appellant in default of payment. 11. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, the appellant namely Kishan Singh son of Lal Singh is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with the stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Supreme Court.