Common Judgment:

1. Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2025 Sri.M.J.Jose, who is the accused in C.C.Nos.20/2016, 21/2016 and 23/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery, is the appellant in all these appeals and he assails the common verdict in the above case, dated 30.11.2017.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records of the Special Court and the common verdict impugned.

3. The prosecution case in C.C.No.20/2016 is that the accused, while working as Head Master, Government Fisheries Upper Primary School, Kizhur, (G.F.U.P. School) during the period from 05.07.2000 to 03.09.2001 and from 19.12.2001  to  02.01.2002,  dishonestly  misappropriated ₹33,120.40, being the amount of Sanchayka; ₹20,000, being the Government fund received from the Deputy Director of Education, Kasaragod, for the improvement of toilet facilities in the school; and ₹890, being the amount of lump sum grant of SC/ST students received from the Government (totalling ₹54,010.40), which were under his control, in his capacity as a public servant, and thereby, committed criminal misconduct by abusing his position as a public servant and obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means, and also forged documents in the office wilfully and with intent to defraud during the period from 24.10.2000 to 15.02.2001.

4. The prosecution case in C.C.No.21/2016 is that the accused, while working as Head Master, G.F.U.P. School, Kizhur, for the period from February 2001 to 03.04.2001, dishonestly misappropriated an amount of ₹5,280, being the professional tax collected from the staff members; ₹24,600, being the GPF advance of PW13; and ₹77,354, being the salary of staff members for the month of March 2001 (totalling ₹1,07,234), which were under his control, in his capacity as a public servant, and thereby, committed criminal misconduct by abusing his position as a public servant and obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means, and also forged documents in the office wilfully and with intent to defraud during the period from February 2001 to 03.04.2001.

5. The prosecution case in C.C.No.23/2016 is that the accused, while working as Head Master, G.F.U.P. School, Kizhur, during the period from 23.08.2001 to 22.12.2001,  dishonestly  misappropriated  an  amount  of ₹8,079, being the excess salary drawn by him in the month of August 2001, and ₹44,500, being the GPF advance of PW5 and PW10 (totalling ₹52,579), which were under his control, in his capacity as a public servant, and thereby, committed criminal misconduct by abusing his position as a public servant and obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means, and also forged documents in the office wilfully and with intent to defraud during the said period from 23.08.2001 to 22.12.2001.

6. All these cases viz., C.C.No.20/2016, C.C.No.21/2016 and C.C.No.23/2016 along with another connected case, viz., C.C.No.22/2016, were tried jointly by the Special Court. During evidence, PW1 to PW17 were examined and Exts.P1 to P86 were marked on the side of the prosecution. During the cross-examination of PW14, a contradiction was marked on the defence side as Ext.D1. Finally, the Special Court found that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act, 1988' hereinafter) in C.C.Nos.20/2016, 21/2016 and 23/2016, while acquitting the accused in C.C.No.22/2016, and sentenced the accused as under:

                  C.C.No.20/2016

                  a)       Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 years (two years) and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months for the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (c) r/w 13 (2) of P.C Act.

                  b)       Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 years (two years) and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months for the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of P.C Act.

                  CC 21/2016

                  b)       Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 years (two years) and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months for the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (c) r/w 13 (2) of P.C Act.

                  c)       Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 years (two years) and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months for the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of P.C Act.

                  CC 23/2016

                  d)       Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 years (two years) and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months for the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (c) r/w 13 (2) of P.C Act.

                  e)       Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 years (two years) and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months for the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of P.C Act.

Common direction applicable in all the above 3 cases.

                  f) The sentences shall run concurrently

                  g)       The sentence in the 3 cases (CC.20/16, 21/16 and 23/16) shall run concurrently as contemplated u/s.427 CrPC. It is made clear that default sentence shall not be affected by this direction.

                  h)       Set off is allowed as contemplated u/s.428 CrPC.

                  i)        The bail bonds executed by the accused in all the 4 cases stands cancelled.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused in all the three cases is insufficient to prove the allegations.

8. But, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed this contention, specifically pointing out the guilt of the accused based on the evidence discussed with reference to the findings in the judgment.

9. In view of the above, the points that arise for consideration are:

                  (i)       Whether the Special Court was justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 in C.C.No.20/2016?

                  (ii)      Whether the Special Court was justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 in C.C.No.20/2016?

                  (iii)     Whether the Special Court was justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 in C.C.No.21/2016?

                  (iv)     Whether the Special Court was justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 in C.C.No.21/2016?

                  (v)      Whether the Special Court was justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 in C.C.No.23/2016?

                  (vi)     Whether the Special Court was justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 in C.C.No.23/2016?

                  (vii)    Whether the verdict would require interference?

                  (viii)    The order to be passed?

10. In this matter, Ext.P2 is the proceedings of the Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 01.02.2000 proved through PW1, the then Junior Superintendent in the office of the Deputy Director, Education (DDE), Kasaragod. Ext.P1 along with the evidence of PW1 would show that Ext.P2 proceedings was issued for the release of funds for providing additional facilities and drinking water facilities in Upper Primary Schools and Lower Primary Schools. Further, as per Ext.P2 proceedings, funds also released to provide toilet facilities for girls in Upper Primary Schools. As per Ext.P1 seizure mahazar prepared by PW15, Exts.P2 to P13 documents produced by PW1 before PW15, were seized. Ext.P3 is a letter dated 28.06.2000 of Assistant Educational Officer, (AEO), Kasaragod addressed to the Deputy Director of Education, (DDE) to furnish the list of schools having no facilities for drinking water, toilet etc., in the Sub District, Kasaragod. Ext.P4 is the proceedings of the DDE dated 08.08.2000, according sanction to utilize the funds meant for providing additional facilities and drinking water facilities in U.P. and L.P. Schools, and toilet facilities for girls in U.P. Schools, along with the list of selected schools including G.F.U.P. School, Kizhur, as per which ₹20,000 was sanctioned to G.F.U.P. School for improving toilet facilities for girls.

11. As deposed by PW1, Ext.P5 is the counter foil of the Treasury Savings Bank Cheque Book containing cheque leaves bearing Nos.195201 to 195250 maintained in the office of the DDE, Kasaragod. Ext.P5(a) is the counter foil of the cheque bearing No.195206 issued for ₹20,000 to the accused, who was the then Head Master of G.F.U.P. School, Kizhur on 29.11.2000. Ext.P6 is the Treasury Savings Bank Pass Book issued from Sub Treasury Office, Kasaragod to DDE, Kasaragod and Ext.P7 is the Treasury Savings Bank Pass Book issued by the Sub Treasury Officer, Kasaragod, to DDE, Kasaragod. Ext.P7(a) is the folio No.383 in Ext.P7 containing the entry regarding the withdrawal of ₹20,000 through Ext.P5 (a) cheque on 02.12.2000. Ext.P8 is the "Allotment of Funds cum Cheque issue Register" maintained in the office of DDE during the period from 01.04.2000 to 26.07.2002. Ext.P8(a) is the page numbers 4 & 5, in this register containing the entry regarding the receipt of Ext.P5(a) cheque for ₹20,000 by the accused on 29.11.2000 including his signature. Ext.P9 is the complaint filed by the then PTA President, Abdul Razak (PW7), before DDE, Kasaragod on 19.01.2002 alleging that accused did not construct toilet in spite of receiving ₹20,000 allotted from the office of DDE. Ext.P10 is the letter of DDE dated 30.01.2002 to AEO, Kasaragod, directing to conduct enquiry regarding Ext.P9 complaint. Ext.P11 is the report furnished by AEO to DDE on 31.05.2002 after conducting enquiry on Ext.P9 complaint. Ext.P12 is the copy of the proceedings dated 30.06.2000 of the DDE, Kasaragod regarding the promotion and posting of Head Masters of Primary schools, as per which, accused was promoted and posted as Head Master in G.F.U.P. School, Kizhur with the direction to joined duty on or before 22.07.2000. Ext.P13 is the memo of charge issued against the accused by DDE, Kasaragod as part of disciplinary action against him for committing misappropriation and irregularities while holding the post of Head Master, G.F.U.P. School, Kizhur. According to this witness, though accused received fund for providing toilet facilities in G.F.U.P. School, he did not construct the toilet.

12. PW2 examined in this case is the then Accounts Officer in the Office of the DDE, Kasaragod, who had conducted a surprise inspection at G.F.U.P. School, Kizhur along with the then DYSP, Vigilance. He identified the joint inventory report furnished in that regard as Ext.P14. He stated that during the inspection, he realised that the accused, who was the then Head Master, and one Gopinath, who was in charge of the Head Master in his absence, had committed grave irregularities, including misappropriation of funds, during their tenure.

13. PW3 is the then AEO, Kasaragod, who handed over Exts.P16 to P25 documents to the Investigator under Ext.P15 seizure mahazar. Exts.P16 and P17 are the applications for temporary advance against deposits in GPF furnished by PW5 and PW10, respectively. Ext.P18 is the application for half pay leave from 18.06.2001 to 23.06.2001 furnished by the accused. Ext.P19 is the file pertaining to the enquiry conducted by the AEO, Kasaragod, on the complaint against the accused filed by PW5 and PW10 for not disbursing their GPF amounts and by one Moidu, the father of Fakaruneesa, a 6th standard student of the school, for not disbursing the scholarship for Muslim girls for the period from 2001 to 2002. Ext.P20 is the file containing the show cause notice issued by the AEO to the accused for unauthorized absence and connected papers. Ext.P21 is the file containing the explanation given by the accused for unauthorized absence from duty, as per the memo issued by the AEO, Kasaragod, dated 20.08.2001, and the challan evidencing the refund of the excess salary drawn by the accused during the said period of unauthorized absence.

14. Supporting  the  allegation  in  C.C.No.20/2016 with respect to the misappropriation of ₹890, granted as a lump sum grant for SC/ST students, PW4, the then Development Officer, Grade II, in the SC/ST Department Office, Kasaragod, had given evidence. According to the learned counsel for the accused, on scanning the evidence of PW4, the same would suggest that ₹890 alleged to be misappropriated by the accused, was directly handed over and it was misappropriated by the accused. At the same time, PW4 deposed that the said amount was sanctioned from the amount kept at the cash chest of the office of PW4. In this connection, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that insofar as misappropriation of ₹890 is concerned, the prosecution evidence is not convincing. But, the Special Court found misappropriation of ₹890, as alleged by the prosecution mainly relying on Ext.P32, letter sent by the accused to SC/ST Development Officer, Kasasragod demanding additional lump sum grant of ₹890 along with the acquittance of the amount already disbursed to the eligible students. Ext.P33 is the proceedings of the Directorof SC/ST Development Office, Thiruvananthapuram enhancing the lump sum grant. Ext.P36 series are the three allotment letters issued from District Development Officer, SC/ST, Kasaragod, allotting the funds to PW4 for disbursal. According to PW4, after disbursement of the amount in the custody of the accused, acquittance for disbursement of ₹890 was not received in her office and on her enquiry, it was found that it was misappropriated and the misappropriation found a place in the newspaper also. As far as the amount of ₹890, alleged to have been misappropriated by the accused, which was allotted towards the lump sum grant, Ext.P30 is the complaint filed by the parents of the students, namely Smt.Sunitha, Smt.Vasanthi, Smt.Meena, etc., alleging non- disbursement of the lump sum grant to their children. Ext.P30(a) is a report filed before the Development Officer, SC/ST Department, Kasaragod. Ext.P31 would show that ₹890 towards lump sum grant for the year 2000-2001 was received by the accused from SC/ST Department Officer, Kasaragod Block Panchayat on 15.02.2001.

15. On a reading of the evidence as a whole, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence to prove non-disbursement of ₹890, the entrustment of ₹890 to the accused, and its consequential misappropriation, could not be accepted.

16. In C.C.No.20/2016, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that as regards to misappropriation of ₹33,120.40 which was collected under the Sanchayka scheme, Exts.P41 and P42 were the pass books and as per which, the accused and PW5 were having joint account in the Chandragiri Post Office and therefore, it could not be safe to hold that the misappropriation was at the instance of the accused alone from the joint account. In this connection, the evidence of PW5 is relevant.

17. PW5 admitted that Exts.P41 and P42 were in the joint account of the accused and PW5. According to him, as per Ext.P41, an amount of ₹25,000 stood deposited as on 17.07.1999, and as per Ext.P42, as on 24.10.2000, a further amount had also been deposited, and thus the total amount available was ₹33,120.40 and PW5 deposed that the said amount was withdrawn from the account by the accused, and that the withdrawal slip was jointly signed by the accused and PW5. His version further is that, out of which, ₹15,000 was deposited in the SB account opened in Post Office, Chandragiri and passbook for the same is Ext.P43. From the remaining amount, ₹15,000 was deposited in TD account and the passbook for the same is Ext.P44. PW5 given  evidence  that  though  the  accused  had  accepted ₹33,120.40  on  closing  the  account,  he  handed  over ₹30,000 only, that too, after 9 months from the date of withdrawal. Ext.P43 and Ext.P33 deposits are the said amounts.

18. As far as the amount of ₹33,120.40 is concerned, even though the same stood in the joint account of the accused and PW5, as is evident from Exts.P41 and P42, the categorical evidence of PW5 is that the said amounts were withdrawn by the accused after both of them had jointly signed the withdrawal slip. Anyhow, ₹30,000 was repaid by the accused after 9 months, though ₹3120.40 paisa not at all paid. However, it appears that going by the evidence of PW4, the amount was entrusted to PW5 only after 9 months.

19. The third allegation in C.C.No.20/2016 is the non-utilization of ₹20,000 sanctioned for the purpose of constructing toilet facilities for G.F.U.P. School, which was entrusted to the accused as the Head Master. Even though it is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove the entrustment of the said amount, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this contention, relying on Ext.P5(a), the cheque already referred to hereinabove, issued for ₹20,000 to the accused, who was the then Head Master of G.F.U.P. School, Kizhur. It was further pointed out that he failed to construct the toilet, which would show that no toilet was constructed and that the amount was misappropriated by the accused, as alleged in C.C.No. 20/2016. On scanning the evidence available, the prosecution succeeded in proving that the accused got custody/entrustment of ₹20,000 for construction of toilets of girl students and misappropriated the said amount without spending a single paise for the construction of toilets, as evidenced from Ext.P11 report proved through PW1. Thus, the allegation of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

20. Coming to C.C.No.21/2016, as per the finding in paragraph No.45 of the judgment, the Special Court found that  as  regards  to  allegation  of  misappropriation  of ₹24,600, the GPF advance of PW13 and ₹77,354, the salary of the staff members for the month of March, 2001, on analysis of the evidence of PW5, PW10 and PW13, on par with Ext.P50, P51, P52, P55, P64 and P65 would show that the same were disbursed to the persons entitled, even though there was some delay in disbursing the amount due to mistake on the part of the accused. Thus, the Special Court did not find any misappropriation in that regard and the said finding is not under challenge. However, the Special Court found the other allegations, which were addressed in paragraph No.43 of the judgment, relying on the evidence of PW2, PW5, PW10 and PW13 along with Exts.P68 and P71. On perusal of the evidence of PW5, PW10 and PW13, it could be gathered that the accused had collected ₹5,280 towards the professional tax due to the Panchayat for the period 2000-2001 from PW5, PW10 and PW13, who were the teachers of the G.F.U.P. School, Kizhur. In addition to that, PW14, the Secretary of the Panchayat, also deposed corroborating the versions of PW5, PW10 and PW13, by stating that G.F.U.P. School, Kizhur failed to remit the second instalment of professional tax for the period 2000–2001 and the first instalment for the period 2001–2002. Noting this, PW14 had issued a letter to the Sub Treasury Officer, Chattanchal directing him not to disburse the salary of the staff members of the school. Thereafter, on the strength of Exts.P69(a) and P70(a), the amounts were remitted.

21. The evidence of PW14 would further suggest that it is the duty of the Head of the Department to collect and remit the professional tax twice in a year. The evidence of PW5, PW10 and PW13 would show that the said amount was collected from them and the evidence of PW5, PW10 and PW13 supported by the evidence of PW14, as discussed would show that there was misappropriation of the said sum by the accused, as contended. Thus, the allegation in C.C.No.21/2016 is misappropriation of ₹5,280 is also proved beyond reasonable doubt.

22. Coming to C.C.No.23/2006, the allegation is confined to misappropriation of ₹8,079 as the excess salary drawn by the accused in the month of August 2001 and ₹44,500 obtained as GPF advance of PW5 and PW10, totalling ₹52,579. The observation of the Special Court in paragraph No.49 is that, as regards the alleged misappropriation of ₹44,500, being the GPF advance due to PW5 and PW10, the learned Special Judge considered the evidence of PW5, PW10 and PW13 along with Exts.P16, P17, P37 to P40 and P52 to prove the same. According to PW5 and PW10, the GPF advance amount was encashed by the accused from the Treasury on 20.12.2001, but the same was not disbursed to them despite repeated demands made by them. Thereafter, on lodging police complaint before the police station regarding non disbursement of the amount, the wife of the accused reached the Bekkal police station and paid the amount. But Ext. P40(a) entry in Ext.P40 cash book would show that the said amount was disbursed thereafter. As far as misappropriation of the said amount is concerned, merely repaying the same, that too after a complaint was lodged before the police, would not absolve the accused from liability.

23. Insofar as the drawing of excess salary by the accused as alleged in C.C.No.23/2016 is concerned, the learned Special Judge did not find the said misappropriation for the reasons stated in paragraph No.46 of the judgment and the said finding is not under challenge and therefore, the same need not be re-visited.

24. Having appraised the evidence discussed, what could be culled out is that, in all the three cases, the ingredients to prove the offences alleged by the prosecution are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction imposed by the learned Special Judge holding so is only to be confirmed. Thus, the conviction does not require any interference.

25. Coming to the sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused pressed for reduction in sentence even below the statutory minimum. In order to substantiate reduction of sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused placed decision  of  the  Apex  Court  in  Ambi  Ram  v.  State of Uttarakhand reported in [2019 KHC 6121], where the Apex Court considered a case within the ambit of Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1947’ hereinafter) for reducing the sentence, where the Apex Court  considered  proviso  to  Section  5(2)  of  the  PC Act, 1947.

26. On perusal of Section 5(2) of the PC Act, 1947, the minimum sentence provided for the offence of criminal misconduct was not less than one year, but which could be extended to seven years, and shall also be liable for fine. Proviso to Section 5(2) of the PC Act, 1947 says that, “the court may, for any special reasons recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year.”

27. On perusal of Ambi Ram’s case (supra), in fact, the Supreme Court assigned eight reasons to apply the proviso to reduce the sentence less than one year. Thus, the Apex Court reduced the sentence beyond the minimum, by applying the benefit of proviso by assigning eight reasons. Coming to the PC Act, 1988 as well as the P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2018, no corresponding proviso is available to reduce the sentence beyond the statutory minimum.

28. That apart, this Court, in Sasidharan Nair C. v. State of Kerala reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 1152], has observed in paragraph Nos.33 and 34, as under:

                  “33. Coming to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the 2nd accused/2nd appellant, in the decision in K. Pounammal v. State represented by Inspector of Police, reported in [2025 INSC 1014], where the Apex Court modified the sentence for the period already undergone, i.e., the sentence lesser than the statutory minimum, it could be gathered that the Apex Court exercised the said power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer another decision of the Apex Court in Dashrath v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2025 KHC 6456, where the Apex Court considered the question as to whether power conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to reduce a minimum sentence prescribed in the Statute. In the said decision, the Apex Court held that the exercise of power conferred by Article 142, in a case such as the present where a minimum sentence is prescribed by the statute, cannot be tinkered, for, the same would amount to legislation by the Court; and, prescription of a term of sentence quite contrary to what the Parliament has legislated would be legally impermissible. The statutory prescription in relation to punishment for a minimum period, unless challenged, cannot be reduced by this Court even in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

                  34. Going by the decision in Dashrath’s case (supra), the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India also could not be invoked to reduce a sentence than the minimum sentence provided by the statute, as the same would amount to legislation by the Court overstepping on the domain of the legislature, which is impermissible.”

29. Thus, this Court cannot reduce the sentence beyond the statutory minimum and this Court has no power equivalent to Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court can only reduce the sentence within the statutory minimum.

                  In the result, these appeals are allowed in part. The convictions imposed by the Special Court are confirmed and the sentences stand modified as under:                   C.C.No.20/2016

                  a)       The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 year (one year) and to pay fine of

₹5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 (five) weeks for the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (c) r/w 13 (2) of P.C Act.

                  b)       The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year (one year) and to pay fine of ₹5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) weeks for the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of P.C Act.

                  C.C.No.21/2016

                  a)       The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 year (one year) and to pay fine of ₹5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 (five) weeks for the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (c) r/w 13 (2) of P.C Act.

                  b)       The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year (one year) and to pay fine of ₹5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) weeks for the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of P.C Act.

                  C.C.No.23/2016

                  a)       The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 year (one year) and to pay fine of ₹5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 (five) weeks for the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (c) r/w 13 (2) of P.C Act.

                  b)       The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year (one year) and to pay fine of ₹5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) weeks for the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of P.C Act.

29. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently and the default sentences shall run separately.

30. The orders suspending sentence and granting bail to the accused stand cancelled and the bail bonds executed by  the  accused  also  stand  cancelled. The appellant/ accused is directed to surrender before the Special Court, forthwith to undergo the modified sentence, failing which, the Special Court is directed to execute the sentence, without fail.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, forthwith, without fail, for information and compliance.