2011 (9) TMI 1191 - SC - Indian Laws

Public servant taking gratification - offence punishable u/s 7, 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act) - Article 142 and its applicability - Quantum of sentence - the appellant working as a Head Clerk in the Traffic Cadre Section, he was caught red handed along with the money which was recovered from the right hand side pocket of his pant and was convicted u/s 7 of the Act for which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of ₹ 500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month. He was also convicted for the offence u/s 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of ₹ 500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month. The trial Court ordered that both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. the appellant submitted that inasmuch as the alleged incident took place on 14.11.1997 and 14 years have elapsed since then, the amount of ₹ 200/- said to have been received by the appellant is trivial in nature and also of the fact that due to the said conviction and sentence he lost his job, leniency may be shown and sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. He fairly admitted that out of the maximum period of one year, the appellant had served only 52 days in prison. HELD THAT - In the case on hand, it is to be noted that on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and the defence and on appreciation of entire materials, the court of first instance i.e. the trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him. The High Court, as an appellate Court, once again analysed all the material, and the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt concurred with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Inasmuch as both the courts have thoroughly discussed the matter with reference to the charges leveled against the appellant and in view of the limited order dated 28.01.2008 by this Court issuing notice confining to quantum of sentence only. we feel that it is not a case of such nature that the appellant should be heard on all points, consequently, we reject the request of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Since the appellant is on bail, the bail bonds executed by him stand cancelled. applicability of Article 142 of the Constitution of India is not in dispute, we make it clear that exercise of such power would, however, depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction, u/s 482 of the Crpc and this Court, under Article 142 of the Constitution, would not ordinarily direct quashing of a case involving crime against the society particularly, when both the trial Court as also the High Court have found that the charge leveled against the appellant under the Act has been made out and proved by the prosecution by placing acceptable evidence.

Issues Involved:
1. Notice on quantum of sentence and its permissibility.
2. Quantum of sentence and whether it requires any reduction.
3. Other circumstances pleaded for reduction of sentence.
4. Article 142 and its applicability.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Notice on Quantum of Sentence and its Permissibility
The Supreme Court issued notice confined to the quantum of sentence. The appellant's counsel argued that the Court could address all aspects of the case to do complete justice, citing the case of Yomeshbhai Pranshankar Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat. However, the Court clarified that such an approach is not universal and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court decided to limit the hearing to the quantum of sentence, rejecting the appellant's request to argue all points on merits.

Issue 2: Quantum of Sentence and Whether It Requires Any Reduction
The appellant's counsel argued for leniency, citing the passage of 14 years since the incident, the trivial amount involved (Rs. 200), and the appellant's job loss. The Court noted that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 mandates a minimum sentence of six months for Section 7 and one year for Section 13, with no provision for reduction below these minimums. The Court emphasized that statutory minimum sentences must be upheld, and delay or the trivial amount involved are not sufficient grounds for sentence reduction.

Issue 3: Other Circumstances Pleaded for Reduction of Sentence
The appellant's counsel referenced the case of Bechaarbhai S. Prajapati vs. State of Gujarat, where the sentence was reduced due to the trivial amount involved and the appellant's time already served. However, the Court distinguished the present case, noting that the appellant had only served 52 days out of the minimum required sentence. The Court also rejected the argument that the long delay and job loss warranted a reduced sentence, reiterating the importance of adhering to statutory minimum sentences.

Issue 4: Article 142 and Its Applicability
The appellant's counsel argued that Article 142 of the Constitution allows the Supreme Court to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. The Court reviewed several precedents and concluded that while Article 142 grants broad powers, these powers cannot be exercised to contravene statutory provisions. The Court emphasized that Article 142 should not be used to supplant substantive law or ignore statutory minimum sentences.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court and High Court's judgments. The Court directed the trial judge to secure the appellant's presence to serve the remaining sentence, emphasizing adherence to statutory minimum sentences and the limited scope of Article 142 in this context.

← Previous Next →