Nanhaku Ram vs State Of Jharkhand
- Neutral2015 INSC 616
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
When determining the appropriate quantum of sentence for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the court may impose the mandatory minimum sentence instead of the sentence awarded by the trial and appellate courts, having regard to mitigating circumstances such as the considerable lapse of time since the commission of the offence (here, 23 years), the advanced age of the convict (approximately 65 years), and serious ailments from which the convict is suffering, where such considerations serve the interests of justice.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The conviction and sentence, as confirmed by the High Court of Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 426 of 2001, is under challenge. The appellant was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 2 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 13(2) and for two years under Section 7 of The Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 with fine. When the matter came up for hearing on 30.03.2015, Notice was issued, limiting the scope to the quantum of sentence.
Having regard to the fact that the incident is of the year 1992, the appellant is aged about 65 years and that he is suffering from very serious ailments, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the punishment is limited to the mandatory minimum, i.e., one year under Section 13(2) and six months under Section 7, as they stood at the relevant time. No change in fine. Ordered accordingly. The sentences shall run concurrently. The period already undergone shall be duly set off.
The appeal is allowed as above.
.............J. (KURIAN JOSEPH)
.............J. (ARUN MISHRA) New Delhi;
Date: 28.08.2015.
-----------------------
NON-REPORTABLE
-----------------------
-2-
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