R.N.Mitra vs C.B.I Dehradun
- SCC(2011) 15 SCC 615
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the trial and appellate proceedings in a criminal case have extended over an exceptionally long period — here, over 30 years from the date of the incident — the inordinate delay itself constitutes a special reason warranting reduction of the sentences imposed, even where the convictions are maintained and the sentences already reduced by the High Court remain within reasonable bounds.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
R.N. MITRA ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
C.B.I., DEHRADUN ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Notice had been issued in this case on 12th November, 2010, restricted to the quantum of sentence only.
3. The trial court awarded the following sentences to the appellant:-
U/S Trial Court 420 IPC RI for 5 years
Fine Rs. 50,000/- and
in default of payment of fine
RI for 2 years
471 r/w 468 IPC RI for one year
Fine Rs. 1,000/- and
in default of payment of fine
RI for 3 months
Crl.A. Of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 3448 of 2010
2
5(2) r/2 5(1)(d) RI for one year of the Prevention Fine Rs. 10,000/- and of Corruption Act
in default of payment of fine
RI for six months
4. The High Court by the impugned judgment maintained the conviction of the appellant but reduced the sentence in the following terms:
U/S High Court 420 IPC RI for one year
Fine `10,000/- and
in default of payment of fine
RI for six months
471 r/w 468 IPC RI for one year
Fine `1,000/- and
in default of payment of fine
RI for one month
5(2) r/2 5(1)(d) RI for one year of the Prevention Fine `10,000/- and of Corruption Act
default of payment of fine
RI for six months
5. It is also evident from the record that the incident pertains to the year 1979 and the trial, appeal and revisional proceedings have gone on for over 30 years. We, therefore, feel that these are special reasons as to why the sentences awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offences should be reduced from one year to three months.
Crl.A. Of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 3448 of 2010
3
6. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant be taken into custody to serve out the remaining part of his sentence.
..................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
...................J
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA]
NEW DELHI
JULY 22, 2011.
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