Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021
(Arising from SLP(Criminal) No.5832/2019)
S.Sundara Kumar …Appellant
Versus
State Represented by
The Inspector of Police, Vigilance
And AntiCorruption, Thoothukudi District,
Tamil Nadu …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 23.11.2018 passed by the Madurai
Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 357
of 2008, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal
preferred by the appellant herein – original accused and has
Signature Not Verified
confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2021.01.13
16:03:20 IST
Reason:
passed by the learned Special JudgecumChief Judicial
1
Magistrate, Thoothukudi dated 23.07.2008 passed in Special
Case No.2 of 2004, convicting the accused – appellant herein for
the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and by which the learned
Special Judge sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.5,000/,
the original accused has preferred the present appeal.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that earlier by order
dated 02.12.2019, this Court issued the limited notice on
quantum of sentence only. Meaning thereby the conviction of the
appellant – original accused came to be confirmed by this Court.
Therefore, now the present appeal is required to be considered
qua the quantum of sentence only.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant –
original accused has submitted that by now the appellant –
original accused has undergone approximately one year and one
month rigorous imprisonment. It is submitted that the accused
appellant is already dismissed from service on being convicted for
the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is
submitted that the appellant is a senior citizen aged about 69/70
years. Therefore, it is prayed to reduce the sentence imposed by
2
the learned Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, to the
sentence already undergone.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
State, as such, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that
the appellant has been convicted for the offences under the
Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore no leniency may be
shown in favour of the accused.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the
facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that
out of two years sentence imposed by the learned Special Court,
confirmed by the High Court, the appellant has already
undergone approximately one year and onemonth and
considering the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen aged
about 70 years and that he is already dismissed from service, we
are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the
sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment as imposed by the
learned Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, is reduced to
that of one year and onemonth rigorous imprisonment.
7. In view of the above and in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order of
conviction passed by the learned Special Court, confirmed by the
3
High Court, is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of two
years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned Special
Court while convicting the accused for the offences under
Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, confirmed by the High Court, is hereby
reduced to one year and onemonth rigorous imprisonment. The
order of fine is not upset. The appellant herein be released on
completion of one year and onemonth rigorous imprisonment, if
not required in any other case.
………………………………..J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]
………………………………..J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………..J.
JANUARY 13, 2021. [M.R. SHAH]
4