2000 JTR(SC) 435
2000 9 SCC 206 ; 2000 SCC(Cri) 1206 ; 2000 KHC 1443
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : U.C.Banerjee
Aditya Nath Pandey
Versus
State Of U.P.
Case No. : 3886 of 1999
Date of Decision : 2/25/00
Advocates Appeared: Garg M.K. : Pundir A.S. : Singh T.N.
The court may reduce a sentence for corruption to the period already undergone if the bribe amount is small and a significant amount of time has elapsed since the commission of the offence.
Act
Referred
:INDIAN PENAL CODE
: S.161
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT: S.5
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 5(2) and proviso to Section 5 - Sentencing - Conviction for taking a bribe of Rs. 50.00 - Offence committed 23 years prior - Consideration of period of time elapsed since the commission of the offence - Sentence reduced to period already undergone. (Paras 2, 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for accepting a bribe of Rs. 50.00 in an occurrence dating back 23 years. The conviction under Section 5(2) of the Act was upheld by the High Court in appeal. The Special Judge, using powers under the proviso to Section 5 of the Act, had reduced the sentence to six months.
Findings of Court:
While upholding the conviction, the court directed that the appellant shall be sentenced to the period already undergone and ordered a fine of Rs. 200, failing which the appellant would undergo further sentence for two months.
Issues: Whether the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone given the small amount of the bribe and the extensive passage of time since the commission of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: Taking into account the facts and circumstances, specifically that the offence was committed 23 years prior, the court held that the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.
Result: Special leave petition disposed of with sentence reduced to period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 200 imposed.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for accepting a bribe of Rs. 50.00 in an occurrence dating back 23 years. The conviction under Section 5(2) of the Act was upheld by the High Court in appeal. The Special Judge, using powers under the proviso to Section 5 of the Act, had reduced the sentence to six months.
Findings of Court:
While upholding the conviction, the court directed that the appellant shall be sentenced to the period already undergone and ordered a fine of Rs. 200, failing which the appellant would undergo further sentence for two months.
Issues: Whether the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone given the small amount of the bribe and the extensive passage of time since the commission of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: Taking into account the facts and circumstances, specifically that the offence was committed 23 years prior, the court held that the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.
Result: Special leave petition disposed of with sentence reduced to period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 200 imposed.
sentencing - Referenced as a case that reaffirmed and followed the decision in B.G. Goswami.
sentencing - Cited to support the reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone.
(1) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner submits only on the question of sentence, since the conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short "the Act") made by the Special Judge has been upheld in appeal by the High Court.
(2) THE allegation against the appellant which has been proved in the case in hand is that he had taken a bribe of Rs. 50.00. The occurrence is of the year 1977 and 23 years have passed in the meantime. The Court below in exercise of its power under the proviso to Section 5 of the Act has reduced the sentence to six months, but the learned counsel says that in view of the decision of this Court in B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Admn. which has been reaffirmed and followed in Ramesh Kumar Gupta v. State of M.P. the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.
(3) IN the facts and circumstances of the present case, more particularly, taking into account the fact that the offence itself was committed 23 years back, while upholding the conviction, we direct that the appellant shall be sentenced to the period already undergone and he shall pay a fine of Rs. 200, failing which the appellant will undergo sentence for two months.
(4) THE special leave petition stands disposed of accordingly.