Supreme Court

Ambi Ram Vs. State of Uttarakhand

MANU/SC/0138/2019

05.02.2019

Criminal

Court is empowered to impose imprisonment of less than one year, if some special reasons in favour of Accused are made out

The Appellant was working as "Kanoongo/Patwari" was prosecuted for commission of the offences punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 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. It was the case of the prosecution that, the Appellant while accepting the illegal gratification of Rs. 1200 from Gopal Singh was caught by S.P. (Vigilance) in a trap arranged for this purpose at the behest of Gopal Singh.

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 in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. So far as the offence punishable Under Section 161 Indian Penal Code 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.

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. The proviso then empowers the Court to impose sentence of imprisonment of less than one year provided any special reasons are recorded in writing in support of imposing such reduce sentence of less than one year.

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.

The incident is of the year 1985 and case is pending for the last 34 years. The Appellant has now reached to the age of 78 years and was suffering from heart ailment. The Appellant has so far, during the trial and after suffering conviction, undergone total jail sentence of one month and 10 days; 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. The bribe amount was Rs. 1200 and in the last 34 years, he has suffered immense trauma, mental agony and anguish. These are the special reasons which satisfy the requirements of proviso to Section 5(2) the PC Act.

Present 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. Present 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 to meet the ends of justice.

Tags : Sentence Modification Special reasons

Share :