Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2015
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No. 8919/2014]
Shanti Lal Meena … Appellant (s)
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi, CBI … Respondent (s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.:
Leave granted.
2. The appeal has called for an analysis of the penological
philosophy behind punishment for offences under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’).
According to W. Friedmann, “ The purpose of the penal law is to
express a formal social condemnation of forbidden conduct,
buttressed by sanctions calculated to prevent it. Implicit in this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Sarita Purohit
Date: 2015.04.08
14:59:58 IST
Reason:
1
formulation are three questions, to which different societies give
very different answers: First, what kind of conduct is ‘forbidden’?
Second, what kind of ‘formal social condemnation’ is considered
appropriate to prevent such conduct? Third, what kind of sanctions
are considered as best calculated to prevent officially outlawed
1
conduct? ”
3. By judgment dated 29.03.2008 of the learned Special Judge
(CBI), Delhi in CC No. 194/2001, the appellant was convicted for the
offences under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and thereafter sentenced to two
years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 with a
fine of Rs.15,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for two years with a
fine of Rs.15,000/- under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of
the PC Act. There was a default sentence as well. The sentences
were to run concurrently.
4. The allegation was that the appellant, who was working as
Sub-Inspector of Police, demanded a bribe of Rs.25,000/- for
releasing the nephew of the de-facto complainant. On such
complaint of PW-5, the Anti-Corruption Branch of the CBI laid a
nd
1
“Law in Changing Society, W. Friedmann, 2 Edition, P.191
2
successful trap on 13.01.2001 which led to the trial.
5. In appeal, the High Court of Delhi found that the conviction
was fully justified. It was further held that “ as regards the sentence,
the Appellant was a Sub Inspector and entrusted with the task of law
enforcement. In the circumstances, the punishment awarded by the
trial Court cannot be said to be disproportionate. The sentence
awarded to the Appellant by the trial Court is upheld ”, and hence
the appeal.
6. Notice in the present case was limited to the quantum of
sentence only. Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant. It is submitted that in view of
the ordeal of a long trial and taking note of the fact that the incident
is of the year 2001, the punishment may be limited to the period
already undergone. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General,
appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand submitted
that since the appellant was caught red-handed while accepting the
bribe in the case at the investigation stage and stressed on the fact
that since the appellant was Sub-Inspector of Police at the relevant
time, if the punishment is reduced, it will give a wrong signal to the
society.
3
7. In determining the quantum of sentence, the kind of
forbidden conduct, the kind of social condemnation, the sanction
prescribed in law, the object of punishment, the nature of crime, the
status of the criminal, etc., are some of the relevant factors to be
considered by the courts.
8. The Prevention of Corruption Act was first introduced in the
year 1947 when “imperative need was felt to introduce a special
legislation with a view to eradicate the evils of bribery and
corruption”. It was subsequently amended in 1952 and 1964. “To
make the anti-corruption laws more effective by widening their
coverage and by strengthening the provisions”, the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 was enacted. The Act was amended in the year
2014.
9. A few special legislations provide for mandatory minimum
punishments and the Prevention of Corruption Act is one such
statute. Prior to the amendment in 2014, the offence under Section
7, the mandatory minimum punishment was six months which may
be extended up to five years with fine. Section 13 of the PC Act
provided for a mandatory punishment of minimum one year which
may be extended to seven years with fine. Section 5 of the
4
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which is the predecessor to
Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, granted the
court a further discretion to reduce the sentence to less than one
year for special reasons to be recorded in writing. However, in the
PC Act, 1988, this discretion given to the court, was taken away. Vide
2014 amendment, the minimum sentence under Section 7 of the PC
Act was raised to three years and the maximum to seven years and
that under Section 13 of the PC Act, it was raised from one year to
four years and maximum to ten years and fine.
10. The punishments under Sections 8, 9, 10, 11 of the PC Act,
1988 were minimum six months extendable to five years with fine
and under Section 14 of the Act, it was minimum two years
extendable to seven years and fine. However, 1988 Act, as it
originally stood, did not provide for mandatory minimum
punishment under Section 15-for an attempt to commit an offence
under Section 13. Nor did the Act of 1947 provide for a mandatory
minimum punishment for the said offence. However, in the 2014
amendment, a mandatory minimum punishment of two years, which
may be extended to five years and fine, has been prescribed as
punishment for attempt under Section 15.
5
11. An analysis of the provisions on punishment under the PC
Act would give a clear indication on the penal philosophy of
deterrence conceived by the Parliament. Though no authentic
reference is available as to what prompted the law maker to take
away the discretion conferred on the court to reduce the minimum
punishment and in enhancing the minimum punishment, it is fairly
clear that the Parliament intended to restrict the discretion of the
courts while imposing the sentence for offences under the
Prevention of Corruption Act. In the words of Justice K. T. Thomas in
2
Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra - “ When
corruption was sought to be eliminated from the polity all possible
stringent measures are to be adopted within the bounds of law. One
such measure is to provide condign punishment. Parliament
measured the parameters for such condign punishment and in that
process wanted to fix a minimum sentence of imprisonment for
giving deterrent impact on other public servants who are prone to
corrupt deals. That was precisely the reason why the sentence was
fixed as 7 years and directed that even if the said period of
imprisonment need not be given the sentence shall not be less than
the imprisonment for one year. Such a legislative insistence is
2
(2000) 8 SCC 571, Paragraph-8.
6
reflection of Parliament’s resolve to meet corruption cases with a
very strong hand and to give signals of deterrence as the most
pivotal feature of sentencing of corrupt public servants. All public
servants were warned through such a legislative measure that
corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequences. If
on the other hand any public servant is given the impression that if
he succeeds in protracting the proceedings that would help him to
have the advantage of getting a very light sentence even if the case
ends in conviction, we are afraid its fallout would afford incentive to
public servants who are susceptible to corruption to indulge in such
nefarious practices with immunity. Increasing the fine after reducing
the imprisonment to a nominal period can also defeat the purpose
as the corrupt public servant could easily raise the fine amount
through the same means. ”
3
12. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of W.B. ,
this Court held at paragraph-15 that “ Imposition of appropriate
punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the
society’s cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that
courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the
3
(1994) 2 SCC 220
7
courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime .”
13. In Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed and another
4
v. State of Gujarat , at paragraph-99, this Court reiterated the
position in the following words “ It is expected that the courts would
operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which
reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process
has to be stern where it should be. Any liberal attitude by imposing
meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on
account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be
resultwise counterproductive in the long run and against the interest
of society which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of
deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. ”
14. In a recent decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v.
5
Bablu , it was held as follows:
“ 10. It is well-settled proposition of law that one of
the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition
of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is
commensurate with the gravity and nature of the
crime and manner in which the offence is
committed. One should keep in mind the social
interest and consciousness of the society while
considering the determinative factor of sentence
4
(2009) 7 SCC 254
5
(2014) 9 SCC 281
8
commensurate with the gravity and nature of crime.
The punishment should not be so lenient that it
shocks the conscience of the society. It is, therefore,
the solemn duty of the court to strike a proper
balance while awarding sentence as awarding a
lesser sentence encourages any criminal and as a
result of the same society suffers.”
15. After extensively referring to the objects of punishment in
6
State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh , at paragraph-17, this Court held
that “ undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do
more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence
in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper
sentence ...”.
16. In Mahesh s/o Ram Narain and others v. State of
7
Madhya Pradesh , while referring to the cruel acts of the convicted
accused, this Court observed that “ to give the lesser punishment for
the appellants would be to render the justice system of this country
suspect. The common man will lose faith in courts. In such cases, he
understands and appreciates the language of deterrence more than
the reformative jargon ”.
8
17. In Ravi alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan , this
6
(2015) 1 S.C.R. 709
7
(1987) 3 SCC 80
8
(1996) 2 SCC 175
9
Court held that the sentence should reflect the social conscience of
society and that the sentencing process has to be stern, where it
should be.
18. In Shailesh Jasvantbhai and another v. State of
9
Gujarat and others , at paragraph-7, it was held that “ protection
of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object
which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence ”.
10
19. In Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar and others , this Court
took the view that … “ the cardinal principle of sentencing policy is
that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime
he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of
the offence .”
20. As far as punishment for offences under the PC Act is
concerned, we do not think that there is any serious scope for
reforming the convicted public servant. The moment he is convicted,
he loses his job. Hence, there is no significance to the theory of
reformation of his conduct in public service. The only relevant object
of punishment in such cases is denunciation and deterrence. That is
9
(2006) 2 SCC 359
10
(2013) 9 SCC 516
10
the reason the Parliament has restricted the judicial discretion in
imposing punishment.
21. To quote Friedmann, “ Generally, the philosophy of
deterrence still prevails in modern criminology. We continue to be
concerned with preventing, by appropriate punitive sanctions, both
the individual offender and other members of society from the
repetition of crime, or the imitation on the part of others by similar
11
actions ” . Unless the courts award appropriately deterrent
punishment taking note of the nature of the offence under the PC
Act and the status of the public servant at the relevant time, people
will lose faith in the justice delivery system and the very object of
the legislation on prevention of corruption will be defeated. The
court is the conscience of the statute and hence its judgments
should project and promote the policy aims of punishment, lest it
should shake the faith of common man in courts. The judgment on
sentence shall not shock the common man. It should reflect the
public abhorrence of the crime. The court has thus a duty to protect
and promote public interest and build up public confidence in
efficacy of rule of law. Misplaced sympathy or unwarranted leniency
nd
11
“Law in Changing Society, W. Friedmann, 2 Edition, P.224.
11
will send a wrong signal to the public giving room to suspect the
institutional integrity, affecting the credibility of its verdict. Thus,
while awarding sentence in cases under the PC Act, the court should
bear in mind the expectation of the people of its paramount duty to
prevent corruption in society by providing prompt conviction and
stern sentence.
22. As noticed by the High Court in the impugned judgment
itself, the appellant was the sub-inspector of police entrusted with
the task of law enforcement. The keeper had become the poacher. In
such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the
punishment awarded by the trial court and confirmed in appeal. This
appeal is hence dismissed.
.………..…………….J.
(T. S. THAKUR)
………..……………..J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
………..……………..J.
(R. BANUMATHI)
New Delhi;
April 7, 2015.
12
ITEM NO.1C COURT NO.3 SECTION II
(For Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No.585/2015 arising out of
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).8919/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17/07/2014
in CRLA No.326/2008 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
SHANTI LAL MEENA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, C.B.I. Respondent(s)
Date : 07/04/2015 This matter was called on for pronouncement of
Judgment today.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Yadav Narender Singh,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph pronounced
the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr.
Justice T.S. Thakur, His Lordship and Hon'ble Mrs.
Justice R. Banumathi.
Leave granted.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed
Reportable Judgment.
(Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra)
Court Master Assistant Registrar
(Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
13