In a case dating back over four decades, the Delhi High Court has commuted the sentence of a 90-year-old man, Surendra Kumar, to the period already undergone — which was only one day in custody. \

The Court noted that the prolonged delay in proceedings had effectively subjected the appellant to punishment over the course of 41 years.

Kumar, who was then serving as the Chief Marketing Manager of the State Trading Corporation of India (STCI), was arrested in 1984 following allegations of demanding a bribe of ₹15,000 from a business partner. He was granted bail shortly after his arrest and remained on bail throughout the trial and appeal proceedings.

Despite the initial arrest in 1984, Kumar was convicted nearly two decades later in 2002 under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The same year, he challenged the conviction and sentence of two years' imprisonment and ₹15,000 fine before the High Court, which stayed his custody during the pendency of the appeal.

Justice Jasmeet Singh, in a judgment passed on July 8, observed that both the trial and appeal had faced inordinate delays — the trial alone took 19 years to conclude, and the appeal remained pending for over 22 years.

“Such inordinate delay is plainly at odds with the constitutional mandate of a speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The ‘Sword of Damocles’ has loomed over the appellant for nearly 40 years — a factor that, by itself, serves as a mitigating circumstance,” the Court observed.

The FIR registered in 1984 alleged that Kumar had demanded a bribe from Abdul Karim Hamid, a partner in a Mumbai-based firm that had submitted a quotation to supply 140 tonnes of dried fish to the STCI. Hamid approached the CBI after Kumar allegedly asked him to bring ₹7,500 in cash to a hotel, with the remaining amount to be paid after the order was secured. A trap was laid, and Kumar was apprehended following the alleged exchange of money.

Before the High Court, Kumar’s counsel did not contest the conviction but pleaded for a reduction in the sentence. It was argued that Kumar, now over 90 and bedridden due to multiple age-related ailments, had already paid the fine imposed by the trial court and would face extreme hardship if sent to jail now.

The CBI did not oppose the plea for leniency, noting that the Prevention of Corruption Act allows courts the discretion to impose less than the minimum sentence in appropriate cases. It pointed to Kumar’s advanced age, deteriorating health, and the absence of any further criminal record.

Accepting the submissions, Justice Singh noted that sentencing is not a mechanical process but must reflect a fair assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors. The Court emphasized that any further incarceration at Kumar’s age could cause “irreversible harm” and defeat the purpose of justice.

“The appellant was a senior officer with STC and has already undergone one day of incarceration. There is no other FIR or criminal record against him, and this incident appears to be his only offence,” the Court noted.

Taking into account Kumar’s age, his medical condition, the delay in proceedings, and the absence of any further wrongdoing, the Court concluded that the ends of justice would be served by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.

Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed, and Kumar’s sentence was modified. His bail and surety bonds were also discharged.

Case Title: Surendra Kumar v. CBI

Citation: To be updated upon official reporting.