Harbans Singh vs State Of Punjab
- SCC(1984) 4 SCC 1
- Neutral1984 INSC 129
- AIRAIR 1984 SC 1594
- SCR[1985] 1 SCR 214
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, although the court has discretion to impose a sentence less than the minimum prescribed, it may do so only for "special reasons" which must be recorded in writing; sympathy or leniency unsustainable in law does not constitute such special reasons, and a High Court's reduction of sentence to the period already undergone on such grounds is wholly impermissible interference with the trial court's sentencing discretion.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ACT: The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 9 Section 5(2). Court to record in writing 'special reasons' when awarding less than the minimum sentence-High Court reducing sentence imposed by trial court to sentence already undergone-Whether valid and legal.
HEADNOTE: Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 prescribes a minimum sentence and discretion is conferred on the Court to give less than the minimum for any 'special reasons' to be recorded in writing. [109B] What constitute 'special reasons' for the purpose of Section 5 (2) was laid down in Meet Singh v. State of Punjab, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1152. [109B] In the instant case, the High Court for reasons utterly untenable interfered with the sentence imposed by the trial court and reduced it to the sentence already undergone. It erred in showing a misplaced sympathy unsustainable in law. [214H; 215A] ^
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1481 of 1984.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 23rd January, 1984 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 45 of 1983.
Harbans Lal and Balmokand Goyal for the Petitioner. The Order of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. 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 tentamount to affirmance of the order of the learned Judge of the High Court who for reasons utterly untenable interfered with teh 215 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.
In Meet Singh v. State of Punjab,(1) this Court pointed out that Sec. 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 be recorded in writing. This Court examined what constitute special reasons for the purpose of Sec. 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.
N.V.K. Petition dismissed. 216
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free