before the court during trial.
"The trial court, in such event, must certify in its judgement about the fact that such whistle blower had come out with the truth and has not concealed anything from the court."
The judge also clarified that on such certification in the judgement, "the court can proceed to award minimum possible sentence to such convicts and if possible, may release him on probation with recommendation to the government that no departmental action should be initiated against him in view of the said conviction."
After suggesting the guiding principles, the judge noted that Kumar's entire effort in the trial was to show "as if he had nothing to do with the entire offence. His stand as to which was the true award list was found to be false. He kept on saying that he had prevented the scam by not implementing the fake lists."
The evidence suggested his full involvement in the scam and that he had actually implemented the forged award lists, the judge said.
The court noted that "he took a wrong stand before the Supreme Court of India in respect of the fakeness and genuineness of the award lists. He maintained the same stand before the investigating officer and stuck to his guns to the last even during trial.
"Even if Sanjiv Kumar had taken a truthful stand, at least at the stage of final arguments in view of the overwhelming evidence forthcoming before this court, his case would have been taken entirely on a different footing than the other convicts.
"But in view of the consistent false stand in respect of the genuineness and fakeness of the award lists, I have no option but to treat him on parity with those convicts who were overseeing the execution of the entire conspiracy," he said.