MEET SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1152

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: D.A. DESAI, A.D. KOSHAL

Case summary

Accordingly if an officer proved to be corrupt to the satisfaction of the court is liable to be dismissed it cannot influence the question of sentence. The Court observes that this appellantcorrupt officer whose corruption was proved to its satisfaction because the High Court...

Judgment text

A MEET SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB February 27, 1980 [D. A. DESAI AND A. D. KOSIIAL, JJ. ] B • "Special Reasons" in ordinaiy and in the context of sentencing process-- Meaning of-Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 5(2) and proviso thereto scope of-Duty of the Court while exercising its discretion under the proviso, • explained. Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 prescribes a minimum c sentence of one year, in all. cases of conviction under the Act, with a proviso that the Court may for any special reasons r~orded in writing impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year. Tho petitioner was convicted for having committed offences under section 161 l. P. C. and Section 5(2) of POCA and was sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year on each count and on the second count, also to pa. y a fine of Rs. 400/- D or in default to suffer further R. J. for three months by the learned Special Judge.

Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to n1n concurrently. Jn appeal the High Court, while maintaining the conviction, reduced the · 1 substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year to the sentence undergone till the date of the' Judgment of the High Court and increased the E fine to Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) or in default to suffer further R. I. t for one year. The I-ligh Court, while so altering the sentence, took into consideration two facts, namely, (i) that the petitioner was dismissed from service and (ii) that be is a family man. Dismissing the special leave petition of the convict against his conviction, there being no appeal by St. re, the Court F HELD: 1.

The language of the proviso to Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act makes it abundantly clear that court is under an obligation to impose a minimum punishment once the conviction is recorded under Section 5(2) and the minimum punishment of imprisonri1ent is for a term not less than one year. Undoubtedly the proviso confers power on the Court to a'vard less than the minimum punishment if the Court convicting ood sentencing the accused, (; is of the opinion that for any special reasons which the Court is under an obligation to record in writing, sentence of imprisonment for a term less than the minimum is called for. Conceding that the quantum of sentence is in the discretion of the trial Court, where the Legislature stepped in and Circumscribed and fettered the· discretion by directing in1posing of a minimum sentence, the court can exercise its discretion within the limited spheres left open by legislature.

The Legis};)ture circumscribed the discretion by reqriiring the 0 Court to impose minimum sentence but left it open to award less than the minimum statutorily prescribed for special reasons. The reasons have to be special reasons. The words 'special reasons' in the context in which they are f them. And, "special reasons" in the context of sentencing process must be special to the accused in tile case or special to the focts and circumstances <>f the case in which the sentence is being awarded. [1155G·H, 1156Al 3. In the instant . case, the only two reasons special according to the High ·. lature. The ugislature circumscribed the discretion by requiring the coun to impose minimum sentence but left it open to award less than the minimum statutorily prescribed for special reasons. The reasons have to be special reasons. The words 'special reasons' in the context in which they are used could only mean special to the accused on whom sentence is being imposed.

The cO'Jrt has to wci gh reasons advanced in respect of each individual accused whose cctsc is taken up for awarding sentence. The word 'special' has to he understood in contradistinction to word 'general' or 'ordinary'. Now what docs term 'special' connote? "Speciru" means distinguished by some . unusual quality; out of the ordinary. (See Words and l'hrasos, Permanent Edition, Volume 39A p. 82. ) Webster defines "special" as particular; peculiar; different from others; designed for a particular purpose, occasion. or person; limited in range; confined to a definite field of action. Thus anything which is common to a large class governed by the same statute cannot be said to be special to each of them. It would thus unquestionably appear that "special reasons" in the context of sentencing process must be special to the accused in the case or special to the facts and the circumstances of the case in which the sentence is being awarded.

The High Court then was under an obligation to award minimum sentence unless the accused advanced special reasons, i. e. special to him in the facts and circumstances of the; case and successfully. invoked the discretion vested in the Court to award ! es~ than the minimum sentence prescribed by law. The Court observes that this appellantcorrupt officer whose corruption was proved to its satisfaction because the High Court declined to interfere with the conviction of the appellant for corruption and who must consequently or of necessity be dismissed from service, considered his dismissal from service as a , special reason. Frankly speaking the High Court honestly did not expect any corrupt officer ! o be retained in service. Ordinarily a corrupt official whose corruption is proved to the hilt is fo~ble to be l dismissed, and therefore, this aspect is not special to the appellant.

Accordingly if an officer proved to be corrupt to the satisfaction of the court is liable to be dismissed it cannot influence the question of sentence. Also because it would be true of all public servants dealt 1£ . with under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Another special reason that appealed to the High Court is that appellant is a 'family man'. Possibly the High Court considered marriage and children of the appellant as special to him. An unsually large numb~r of the Government officers from amongst those charged with cormption and convicted for the same would be married men with family, unless they joined service before marriage and became corrupt very soon at the inception of the career. And ordinarily speaking a family of corrupt officer in some cases if not all benefits by the corrupt activity unless shown to the contrary which is not the case.

' If large number of public servants from those convict<(_d under section 5{2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are married men with children it passes comprehension how this fact can be styled as special to the appellant influencing his sentence. It may be mentioned without fear of contradiction that the only two reasons, special according to the High Court for awarding less than the minimum sentence are (i) appellant has lost his job and (ii) he is a married man with children. These two reasons would be common to ninety nine per cent of cases tried under Prevention of Corruption Act and if they can be styled as special reasons for awarding less than the • minimum sentence the proviso would be rendered wholly nugatory.

The Court should not be oblivious to the fact that while conferring discretion in the matter of awarding adequate sentence within limits prescribed by the statute, the Legislature finding cases of misplaced sympathy in sentencing process fettered the Court's discretion by prescribing a minimum sentence and making it obligatory to record . special reasons for awarding less .. than the minimum. If still the B notice of encroachments on court's discretion is not taken, time may not be far when the Legislature out of exasperation may resort to what it has done in Section 16 ·of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act where minimum sentence is prescribed and Courts' discretion to award less in any case is wholly taken away. In this context it would be timely to recall the warning uttered by this Court in Jagdish Prasad v.

West Bengal(') This Court said : "Offences under the Act being anti-social crimes affecting the health and well-being of our people, the Legislature having regard to the trend of courts to impose in most cases only fines or where a sentence of imprisonment was passed a light sentence was awarded even in cases where a severe sentence was called for, & more drastic step wa§ taken by it in prescribing a minimum sentence and a minimum fin~ · to be imposed even for a first offence. " In this case, there was no justification, much less special reasons statutorily required, for awarding less than the minimum sentence. stricto sensu Court exceeded its jurisdiction while interfering with the quantum of sentence. And with this observation we dismiss the special leave petition. S. R. Petition dismissed. (! ) [1972]2 S. C. R. p. 845 rt 851.