1984 JTR(SC) 195
1984 AIR(SC) 1594 ; 1984 CriLR 379 ; 1984 2 Crimes(SC) 807 ; 1984 EastCrC(SC) 152 ; 1984 2 Scale 78 ; 1984 4 SCC 1 ; 1984 SCC(Cri) 486 ; 1985 1 SCR 214
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.
Harbans Singh, Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
Sp. Leave Petn. (Criminal) No. 1481 of 1984
Decided on 25-7-1984.
Act Referred :PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.5(2)
(A) Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act establishes a mandatory minimum sentence while expressly empowering the court to record special reasons in writing for awarding a lesser sentence; this case turns on whether the trial courts reduction was justified under that provision.
(B) The court emphasized that such reduction requires cogent, legally sustainable special reasons; misplaced sympathy or reasons that are utterly untenable do not qualify, and the interfering order was therefore erroneous.
Facts of the case:
A case tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act culminated in a sentence imposed by the trial court, which was subsequently reduced by a High Court Judge to a sentence already undergone.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts reduction was based on reasons that were legally unsustainable and constituted a misuse of discretion; the interference with the trial sentence was wholly impermissible.
Issues:
Whether the High Court had valid grounds to reduce the sentence to one already served under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
Under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a lower sentence may be awarded only on special reasons recorded in writing; absent such special reasons, the reduction is unsustainable.
Result:
The special leave petition is rejected, and the order of the High Court interfering with the trial sentence is set aside.
(A) Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act establishes a mandatory minimum sentence while expressly empowering the court to record special reasons in writing for awarding a lesser sentence; this case turns on whether the trial courts reduction was justified under that provision.
(B) The court emphasized that such reduction requires cogent, legally sustainable special reasons; misplaced sympathy or reasons that are utterly untenable do not qualify, and the interfering order was therefore erroneous.
Facts of the case:
A case tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act culminated in a sentence imposed by the trial court, which was subsequently reduced by a High Court Judge to a sentence already undergone.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts reduction was based on reasons that were legally unsustainable and constituted a misuse of discretion; the interference with the trial sentence was wholly impermissible.
Issues:
Whether the High Court had valid grounds to reduce the sentence to one already served under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
Under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a lower sentence may be awarded only on special reasons recorded in writing; absent such special reasons, the reduction is unsustainable.
Result:
The special leave petition is rejected, and the order of the High Court interfering with the trial sentence is set aside.
Judgement
ORDER :—We are not inclined. to grant special leave, but we make this short speaking order in order to keep the record straight that the dismissal of the special leave petition does not tantamount to affirmance of the order of the learned Judge of the High Court who for reasons utterly untenable interfered with the sentence imposed by the trial court and reduced it to sentence already undergone which in the facts and circumstances of the case was wholly impermissible.
2. In Meet Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCR 1152, this Court pointed out that Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act prescribes a minimum sentence and discretion is conferred on the court to give less than the minimum for any special reasons to he recorded in writing. This Court examined what constitute special reasons for the purpose of Section 5(2) and pointed out that the reasons which weighed with the learned Judge in reducing the sentence to the sentence undergone could not be special reasons. Therefore, in our view, the learned Judge was entirely in error in showing a misplaced sympathy unsustainable in law. With these observations we reject the special leave petition.
Petition rejected.
For Citation: AIR 1984 SC 1594