Article 142 Power Can't Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum in PC Act Cases: Supreme Court - 2025-07-03

SC Rejects Leniency Plea in 25-Year-Old Corruption Case, Clarifies Article 142 Cannot Bypass Minimum Sentence

New Delhi: The Supreme Court, while partially allowing an appeal to reduce a sentence, has firmly ruled that its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be used to impose a sentence lower than the statutory minimum prescribed under laws like the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). Upholding the conviction of a septuagenarian in a corruption case dating back over 25 years, a bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta underscored that corruption deserves no sympathy and reducing sentences below the minimum would be "tantamount to supplanting statutory mandate."

Case Background

The appeal was filed against a Bombay High Court order that had upheld the conviction and sentence of a public servant by a Special Court in Parbhani . The appellant was found guilty under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 500. He was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment. The incident occurred over two and a half decades ago.

Appellant's Contentions

Senior Advocate Ms. Meenakshi Arora , representing the appellant, challenged the conviction on four main legal grounds:

1. Mechanical Sanction: The sanction to prosecute was granted mechanically without due application of mind.

2. Improper Investigation: The investigation was conducted by a Police Inspector, allegedly in violation of Section 17 of the PC Act, which requires an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

3. Lack of Proof of Demand: The demand for the bribe was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, citing the Constitution Bench judgment in * Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT Delhi) . 4. Biased Witness: * A seizure witness was related to the complainant, making his testimony unreliable.

In the alternative, Ms. Arora pleaded for leniency, arguing that the appellant is now a septuagenarian and the case has been pending for over 25 years. She cited the precedent in H.P. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka , where the Court had used its powers under Article 142 to reduce a sentence.

State's Arguments

Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, counsel for the State of Maharashtra, countered that the conviction was based on solid evidence and the appellant's own candid admissions during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. She argued that the demand and acceptance of the bribe were clearly established and that the appellant had not served any time in custody.

Court's Analysis and Rejection of Technical Pleas

Justice Dipankar Datta systematically dismissed the appellant's technical contentions.

On Sanction: The Court held that a sanctioning authority's approval of a draft order is valid if they have applied their mind and are satisfied with its contents. The bench noted, "If a draft order is placed before the sanctioning authority and he is satisfied that nothing needs to be added/deleted therefrom, the grant of sanction cannot be faulted merely on the ground of absence of addition of words to/deletion of words from the draft."

On Investigator's Rank: The Court took judicial notice of a 1989 Government Order by the State of Maharashtra, issued under the PC Act, which authorizes Police Inspectors of the Anti-Corruption Bureau to investigate such offences. The Court affirmed that such statutory instruments have the force of law and need not be formally proved as evidence.

On Proof of Demand: The Court found the demand to be proven "without a doubt," relying on prosecution evidence and the appellant's own "candour" in his Section 313 Cr.PC statement.

On Witness Credibility: The relationship of a witness to the complainant is not a ground to discard their testimony if it is otherwise found to be credible and unshaken in cross-examination.

The Ruling on Article 142 and Minimum Sentence

The most significant part of the judgment dealt with the plea for reducing the sentence below the statutory minimum by invoking Article 142. The Court, citing precedents like * Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat *, firmly established the legal position.

> "Law is, thus, well-settled that exercise of power conferred by Article 142, in a case such as the present where a minimum sentence is prescribed by the statute, cannot be tinkered, for, the same would amount to legislation by the Court; and, prescription of a term of sentence quite contrary to what the Parliament has legislated would be legally impermissible."

The bench distinguished the H.P. Venkatesh case, stating its inability to follow it and emphasizing that offences under the PC Act stand on a different footing. It remarked that reducing the sentence below the minimum would be a "usurpation of the function of the legislature."

Final Verdict

While rejecting the plea for invoking Article 142 for extraordinary leniency, the Court did provide some relief. Considering the appellant's advanced age and the prolonged legal battle, the bench modified the sentence for the offence under Section 7 from two years of rigorous imprisonment to one year of simple imprisonment. The one-year sentence under Section 13 was upheld, with both to run concurrently.

The Court directed the appellant to surrender within six weeks to serve his sentence. This judgment serves as a strong reminder that while judicial discretion exists, it cannot override clear legislative mandates, especially in the fight against corruption.