Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1716 OF 2011
K. POUNAMMAL ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE REPRESENTED BY
INSPECTOR OF POLICE ….Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Heard learned counsel Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy for the
appellant and learned counsel Mr. Mukesh Kumar
Maroria for the respondent-State.
2. This criminal appeal by the appellant-convict is
th
directed against judgment and order dated 4 August,
2010 of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in
Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2003, whereby the High
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2025.08.22
13:22:46 IST
Reason:
Court confirmed judgment and order delivered by the
Page 1 of 13
Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (for short
th
“CBI”), Madurai in Criminal Case No. 2 of 2003 dated 5
November, 2003, convicting the appellant for the offences
under Section 7, Section 13(2) read section 13(1)(d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing
her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and
₹
with fine of 1000/- with default clause in respect of the
offence under Section 7, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and with fine of ₹ 1000/- with
default clause for the offence under Section 13(2) read
with Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act.
3. The appellant had been serving as an Inspector of
Central Excise. The complainant (PW-2) who was a
supervisor at Parani Match Factory at Sengamalapatti of
Sivakasi Taluka, made an application for grant of fresh
central excise registration certificate for its factory. The
application was to be dealt within the Thiruthangal – II
Range which was under the jurisdiction of the appellant-
accused. It was the case of the prosecution that on
16.09.2002 the appellant demanded illegal gratification
Page 2 of 13
₹
of a sum of 300/-. The complainant did not pay the
bribe amount although was pressurised and threatened.
For want of payment of said amount by the complainant,
delayed release of the certificate. It led to lodging of the
complaint on 21.09.2002.
3.1 The Competent Authority – Commissioner of
Central Excise and Customs (PW-1), Thiruthangal – II
Range granted sanction to prosecute the appellant on
26.03.2003. The charge-sheet came to be filed on
07.05.2003. At the end of the trial, Special Judge, CBI
convicted and sentenced the appellant as above, which
was upheld by the High Court.
3.2 While recording the conviction and sentence
against the appellant, the trial court as well as the High
Court concurrently held that the essential elements of
demand and payment were proved against the appellant
to constitute and establish the offence under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. From the depositions
of the complainant (PW-2), accused (PW-3), and the
Officer (PW-4) as well as from documentary evidence [Ex.
Page 3 of 13
P-2 and P-4], the offence was established. The brother of
the complainant (PW-3) saw the accused accepting
₹ 300/- under the file. It was recorded that the
information regarding the demand made by the accused
was conveyed to the CBI office at Chennai.
3.3 The aspect of result of sodium carbonate
phenolphthalein test was also noticed and it was a clear
finding recorded that when the sodium carbonate test
was conducted on the right and left hands of the
appellant-accused, the result was positive. When the
accused was asked to dip her hands, it turned into pink
colour. The defence case of non-probability of accused
having demanded the money was not accepted in light of
the outweighing evidence in that regard. The High Court
endorsed to the view taken by the trial court.
4. In course of hearing today, learned advocate for
the appellant stated before the Court upon instructions
from the appellant that he gives up the challenge to the
conviction recorded against the appellant and that
confines the appeal in respect of the sentence part only.
Page 4 of 13
He requested the court for reduction of the sentence to
further submit that the period of sentence already
undergone may be treated as adequate sentence while
maintaining the conviction. He submitted that the
complaint was filed as back as on 23.09.2002 and 23
years have passed by since the occurrence of the incident
where appellant-lady was alleged to have asked for the
illegal gratification of ₹ 300/-.
5. In M.W. Mohiuddin vs. State of Maharashtra,
[(1995) 3 SCC 567] this Court maintained the conviction
of the appellant for the offences under Section 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) and Section 7 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, however in the final analysis, reduced
the sentence noticing that the offence had taken place in
the year 1981. The Court observed,
“….. All these years the appellant has
undergone the agony of criminal
proceedings uptil now and he has also
lost his job and has a large family to
support. It is also stated that he has
become sick and infirm. He has been
in jail for some time. For all these
special reasons, while confirming the
conviction of the appellant, we reduce
Page 5 of 13
the sentence of imprisonment to the
period already undergone. However, we
confirm the sentence of fine with
default clause…..” (Para 10)
5.1 Similarly, in Bechaarbhai S. Prajapati v. State of
Gujarat, [(2008) 11 SCC 163] it was a Police Sub-
Inspector who demanded money for allowing a luxury
bus carrying marriage party to go to the destination. In
that case also, both the trial court and the High Court
held that the demand and acceptance of bribe money
were proved and the tainted currency notes were
recovered from the appellant. However, the alternative
submissions on behalf of the appellant was accepted by
the court that the sentence would operate harsh as the
occurrence took place nearly 7 years back. Noticing that
the appellant had suffered custody for more than six
months and taking into account all the other relevant
aspects, the Court took the view that justice would be
best served if the sentence was reduced to the period
already undergone, while maintaining the conviction. The
appeal was accordingly dismissed by modifying the
sentence.
Page 6 of 13
5.2 Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall vs. State of Gujarat,
is yet another precedent. This
[(2015) 15 SCC 506]
Court in the facts of the case before it reduced the
substantive sentence and enhanced the fine or
compensation. While doing so, following pertinent
observations were made,
“The incident, in question, took place
as back as on 29-6-1987. Almost 27
years have passed by. All these years,
the appellants must have suffered
tremendous mental trauma and
anguish. The appellants have lost their
jobs and all retiral benefits. The
appellant Jujarsinh is, as of today,
about 76 years old. We are informed by
the learned counsel for the appellant
Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall that
Gulmahmad is suffering from gangrene
and has undergone surgery. Both the
appellants are in jail. We are informed
by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the appellants have
undergone about more than two
months' imprisonment.”
(Para 5)
5.3 This Court has been consistent in approaching
and dealing with the cases where the sentence already
undergone by the convict is treated to be adequate
Page 7 of 13
sentence for variety of mitigating factors and
circumstances operating in the case.
5.4 The accused in B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Admn.
[(1974) 3 SCC 85], was convicted for the offence under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court
observed that the main purpose of the sentence, broadly
stated, is that the accused must realise that he has
committed an act which is harmful not only to the society
of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to
his own future, both as an individual and as a member of
the society. It is the design to protect the society by
deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the
guilty party from repeating the offence. It was stated that
reformatory aspect is also relevant and the offender
should be reclaimed as law abiding citizen.
5.5 In Dologovinda Mohanty vs. State of Orissa
[(1979) 4 SCC 557], this Court took into account of
₹
138/- alleged to have been received by accused as illegal
gratification, while confirming the conviction to reduce
the sentence. In the same way, in State of Maharashtra
Page 8 of 13
v. Rashid B. Mulani [(2006) 1 SCC 407] the accused
₹
had obtained illegal gratification to the tune of 300/- in
the capacity of Talathi. The said incident had occurred
before 19 years and the case was pending since long
before the Special Judge. This Court reduced the
sentence.
5.6 In K.P. Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2015)
15 SCC 497] it was observed by the Court that the
quantum of sentence to be awarded would depends upon
a variety of factors including the mitigating
circumstances in a given case. It was stated that in doing
so the courts are influenced in varying degree, and adopt
reformative, deterrent and punitive approach.
5.6.1 It was observed thus,
“…..delay in the conclusion of the trial
and legal proceedings, the age of the
accused, his physical/health
condition, the nature of the offence,
the weapon used and in the cases of
illegal gratification the amount of
bribe, loss of job and family obligations
of the accused are also some of the
considerations that weigh heavily with
the courts while determining the
Page 9 of 13
sentence to be awarded…..” (Para
10)
6. The conviction and sentence have their respective
realms. While the conviction would be recorded on the
basis of evidence adduced before the Court which would
establish the implication of the accused in the offence,
the guilty person or the convicted when to be awarded a
sentence, a host of factors would operate to govern.
6.1 In determining the final sentence and the nature
thereof, variety of factors that would operate would
include the intervening time between the commission of
offence and the actual award of the sentence, age of the
accused, the stress which he or she might have suffered
because of passage of time during each case has
remained pending and undecided, the family
circumstance and such other factors, without becoming
exhaustive.
7. The process of sentencing by the courts is guided
by theories such as punitive, deterrent or reformative.
Each school of thought has its own object and purpose to
Page 10 of 13
explain awarding of sentence and its utility. Amongst
these theories, reformative approach has become
increasingly acceptable to the modern jurisprudence.
Reformation is something always considered progressive.
When there are mitigating circumstances, the court
would lean towards reducing of the sentence. The focus
would be on the crime, and not on the criminal. The
society and system would nurture the guilt with
positivity, while selecting the sentence.
8. In light of the above principles guiding the
sentencing process, the submission of learned advocate
for the appellant could be countenanced that in the case
on hand the incident had taken place on 23.09.2002.
Since then, more than two decades have passed by. The
appellant underwent imprisonment for 31 days. The
appellant is a widow lady. It was stated that she is now
75 years of age. The appellant has been staying alone, the
husband having died, stated her learned counsel. She
belongs to scheduled caste and has been spending her life
negotiating all hardships.
Page 11 of 13
9. The prolongation of a criminal case for an
unreasonable period is in itself a kind of suffering. It
amounts to mental incarceration for the person facing
such proceedings. For a person who is convicted and
who has appealed against his or her conviction and
sentence and who everyday awaits the fate of litigation,
spends time in distress. In the present-day system of
administration of justice, in which proceedings have often
go on protracted unreasonably and therefore unbearably,
the passage of long time itself makes the person suffer a
mental agony.
10. The aspects in the present case as highlighted
above that the incident had occurred more than 22 years
ago and that the age of the widow appellant is 75 years
who stays alone, the Court finds it appropriate that she
may not be made to undergo the imprisonment again. In
the totality of the facts and circumstances, the
imprisonment already undergone by her is treated to be
adequate sentence.
Page 12 of 13
10.1 The sentence awarded to the appellant is
accordingly reduced to the actual undergone. At the same
time the imposition of fine is required to be increased.
The appellant shall be liable to pay fine of ₹ 25,000/- over
and above originally imposed. The amount of fine shall be
th
paid on or before 10 September, 2025.
11. The appeal is thus dismissed of by confirming the
conviction of the appellant, however by modifying the
sentence which is awarded as above. It is provided that if
the appellant fails to pay the amount of fine as directed
above within the stipulated time, the original order of
sentence shall revive and operate rendering the appellant
liable to surrender before the authorities concerned.
....…………………………….. J.
N.V. ANJARIA
…..…………………………….. J.
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
NEW DELHI;
August 21, 2025
Page 13 of 13