Supreme Court Reduces Sentence to Statutory Minimum in Corruption Case, Upholds Conviction

Case Snapshot

Case Name: N. Damodaran v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Citation: 2026 INSC 751

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Date of Judgment: July 24, 2026

Area of Law: Criminal Law, Prevention of Corruption Law, Sentencing

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal filed by a Junior Engineer convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the statutory minimum.

The appellant, a Junior Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 10,000 from a contractor. He was caught red-handed in a trap laid by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing. The Trial Court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the conviction, as the prosecution's case was corroborated by independent witnesses and the trap was laid properly. However, the Court noted that at the time the offence was committed, the statutory minimum punishment under Sections 7 and 13(2) was six months and one year, respectively. The Court reduced the sentence to the statutory minimum—six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2). The fine and default sentence remained unchanged.

Relevant Facts

The Accused: The appellant was a Junior Engineer Level-1 in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at Coimbatore.

The Bribe: PW2, a contractor, applied for a service connection on behalf of his wife. The appellant demanded Rs. 10,000 in addition to the required deposit of Rs. 1,600.

The Trap: PW2 approached the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Coimbatore, who laid a trap. The appellant was caught red-handed.

Prosecution Witnesses:

• PW2 (the complainant): Spoke of the demand, the complaint laid before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, and the manner in which the trap was set up and implemented.

• PW3 (a friend): Accompanied PW2 to the electricity office and corroborated the demand made by the appellant.

• PW4 (independent witness): Accom

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.