Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1723 OF 2009
Ambi Ram ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and order dated 14.05.2009 passed by the High
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal
Appeal No. 258 of 2001 (Old No.1518/1991)
whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal
filed by the appellant herein.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.04.11
17:15:39 IST
Reason:
2. A f ew facts need mention to appreciate the
short controversy involved in this appeal.
1
3. The appellant was working as
"Kanoongo/Patwari" at Didihat, Uttarakhand. He
was prosecuted for commission of the offences
punishable under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the
PC Act”) read with Section 161 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
4. The charge against the appellant was that he
assured one Gopal Singh that he would not arrest
him nor would implicate him in one pending
criminal case, if he pays him Rs.1200/.
5. It was the case of the prosecution that the
appellant while accepting the illegal gratification of
Rs.1200/ from Gopal Singh on 30.09.1985 was
caught by S.P. (Vigilance) in a trap arranged for this
purpose at the behest of Gopal Singh.
6. The Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, by order
dated 05.08.1991, found the case of the prosecution
proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly
2
convicted the appellant for the offences punishable
under Section 5 (2) of the PC Act read with Section
161 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a
fine of Rs.5000/ under Section 5(2) of the PC Act
and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
three years under Section 161 IPC. Both the
sentences were to run concurrently.
7. The appellant felt aggrieved by his conviction
and sentence and filed an appeal in the High Court.
By impugned order, the High Court partly allowed
the appeal. The High Court maintained the
conviction insofar as it pertains to the offence
punishable under Section 5(2) of the PC Act but
interfered in quantum of sentence awarded and
accordingly reduced the jail sentence from four
years to one year and reduced the fine amount of
3
Rs.5000/ to Rs.3000/ in default of payment of
fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for
three months. So far as the offence punishable
under Section 161 IPC is concerned, the High Court
upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence
from three years to one year. Both the sentences
were to run concurrently.
8. The appellant(accused) felt aggrieved and has
filed this appeal by way of special leave in this
Court.
9. Heard Mr. Arun K. Sinha, learned counsel for
the appellant(accused) and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar
Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent(State).
10. Learned counsel for the appellant (accused)
has argued only one point. He did not question the
legality of the conviction. All that he argued was
that the jail sentence awarded to the appellant be
reduced.
4
11. According to him, having regard to the fact
that the appellant is now aged around 78 years and
suffering from heart ailment and further the
incident is of the year 1985 and, in the meantime,
34 years have elapsed and lastly, the appellant has
undergone around one month and 10 days
imprisonment, this Court should exercise its powers
under proviso to Section 5 (2) of the PC Act and
reduce the jail sentence from one year to what is
undergone by the appellant, i.e., 1 month and 10
days as his total jail sentence and may, if
considered proper, instead enhance the fine
amount.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent, in reply,
supported the impugned order and contended that
having regard to the factual circumstances, no case
of further reduction in the sentence awarded by the
High Court is made out and, therefore, the appeal is
liable to be dismissed.
5
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to allow the appeal in part and reduce
the sentence as indicated below.
14. Section 5 (2) of the PC Act reads as under :
“(2) Any public servant who commits criminal
misconduct shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than one year but which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the court may, for any
special reasons recorded in writing, impose a
sentence of imprisonment of less than one
year.”
15. Reading of Section 5 (2) of the PC Act shows
that it provides that any public servant, who
commits criminal misconduct, shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than one year but which may extend to seven
years and shall also be liable to fine.
16. The proviso then empowers the Court to
impose sentence of imprisonment of less than one
year provided any special reasons are recorded in
6
writing in support of imposing such reduce
sentence of less than one year.
17. It is, therefore, clear that the Court is
empowered to impose a sentence, which may vary
from 1 year to 7 years with fine. However, in a
particular case, the Court finds that there are some
special reasons in favour of the accused then the
Court is empowered to impose imprisonment of less
than one year provided those special reasons are set
out in writing in support of imposing sentence less
than one year. So far as imposing of fine is
concerned, it is mandatory while imposing any jail
sentence. How much fine should be imposed
depend upon the facts of each case.
18. In the case of K.P. Singh vs State (NCT of
Delhi), (2015) 15 SCC 497, this Court on
somewhat similar facts considered the question as
to what factors/circumstances should be taken into
consideration for reducing the jail sentence.
7
19. In his concurring opinion, Justice T.S Thakur
(as his Lordship then was and later CJI) in his
distinctive style of writing in detail examined this
question in the light of law laid down by this Court
in earlier cases on the subject and held as under:
“10. Determining the adequacy of sentence
to be awarded in a given case is not an easy
task, just as evolving a uniform sentencing
policy is a tough call. That is because the
quantum of sentence that may be awarded
depends upon a variety of factors including
mitigating circumstances peculiar to a given
case. The courts generally enjoy considerable
amount of discretion in the matter of
determining the quantum of sentence. In
doing so, the courts are influenced in varying
degrees by the reformative, deterrent and
punitive aspects of punishment, 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
sentence to be awarded. The courts have not
attempted to exhaustively enumerate the
considerations that go into determination of
the quantum of sentence nor have the courts
attempted to lay down the weight that each
one of these considerations carry. That is
because any such exercise is neither easy nor
8
advisable given the myriad situations in
which the question may fall for
determination. Broadly speaking, the courts
have recognised the factors mentioned
earlier as being relevant to the question of
determining the sentence. The decisions of
this Court on the subject are a legion.
Reference to some only should, however,
suffice.
19. Given the fact that the trial and appeal
proceedings have in the case at hand
continued for nearly 17 years by now causing
immense trauma, mental incarnation ( sic
incarceration) and anguish to the appellant
and also given the fact that the bribe amount
was just about Rs 700 and that the appellant
has already undergone 7½ months
imprisonment against the statutory
minimum of 6 months’ imprisonment, the
reduction of the sentence as proposed by my
esteemed Brother appears to be perfectly in
order. I, therefore, concur with the view
taken by his Lordship.”
20. Keeping in view the aforementioned statement
of law laid down by this Court when we examine the
facts of the case at hand, we find that Firstly, the
incident is of the year 1985; Secondly, this case is
pending for the last 34 years; Thirdly, the appellant
has now reached to the age of 78 years; Fourthly, he
is suffering from heart ailment, as stated by the
9
learned counsel for the appellant, and is also not
keeping well; Fifthly, he has so far, during the trial
and after suffering conviction, undergone total jail
sentence of one month and 10 days; Sixthly, he has
been on bail throughout for the last 34 years and
did not indulge in any criminal activities nor
breached any conditions of the bail granted to him;
Seventhly, the bribe amount was Rs.1200/; and
lastly, in the last 34 years, he has suffered immense
trauma, mental agony and anguish.
21. The aforesaid 8 reasons which, in our view, are
the special reasons satisfy the requirements of
proviso to Section 5 (2) the PC Act. This Court,
therefore, invoke the powers under proviso to
Section 5 (2) of the PC Act and accordingly alter the
jail sentence imposed on the appellant by the two
Courts below and reduce it to "what is already
undergone by the appellant", i.e., 1 month and 10
days.
10
22. In other words, this Court alter the jail
sentence of the appellant and award him "what is
already undergone by him" and at the same time
enhances the fine amount of Rs.3000/ to
Rs.10,000/ to meet the ends of justice.
23. The appellant is, therefore, now not required to
undergo any more jail sentence. However, in case he
fails to deposit a fine amount of Rs.10,000/ after
adjusting the sum of Rs.3000/, if already paid by
the appellant, he will have to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month.
24. If the appellant deposits the fine amount of
Rs.10,000/ within 3 months from today, he will
not be required to undergo any default jail sentence.
If he has already deposited Rs.3000/ then he will
only deposit Rs.7000/.
11
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is partly allowed. The impugned order
is modified to the extent indicated above.
.………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
February 05, 2019
12