The judgment establishes that the power of commutation exclusively vests with the appropriate Government and should be exercised reasonably and rationally, considering mitigating circumstances and public interest.

Judgment

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE only question raised in this appeal is whether the High Court of Delhi acted within the framework of law in exercising power available under Section 433 (c) of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short code ).

( 3 ) FACTUAL position giving rise to the appeal is as follows: respondent (also described as accused) was prosecuted for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 7, and Section (13) (1) (d) punishable in terms of Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act ). The respondent was found guilty by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years relating to offence under section 7 with fine of Rs. 500/ -. He was further sentenced under Section 13 (2) to undergo imprisonment for 3 and 1/2 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The matter was carried in appeal by the respondent-accused before the High Court. The order of conviction was not challenged at the time of hearing, what was pressed before the High Court related to the quantum of sentence. It was submitted that the appellant had faced ordeal of trial for 11 years and was on the verge of retirement as his date of superannuation was to be in March, 2002. He was not a previous convict and the ends of justice would be met if sentence of fine is enhanced in order to commute the sentence of imprisonment and consequentially recommend to the Government to consider the case under Section 433 of the code. High Court noted that there was no serious opposition by the investigating agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short cbi) for a recommendation.

( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge who heard the criminal appeal felt that no useful purpose would be served in requiring the appellant to undergo sentence at the belated stage and it would be appropriate if fine is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- in commutation of sentence of imprisonment. He further directed that the case of the accused was to be considered and regularized in accordance with Section 433 (c) of the Code. A further direction was given that on the deposit of Rs. 15,000/- as fine in commutation of sentence of imprisonment within a stipulated period and intimation of deposit being given to the appropriate Government, the State Government may formalize the matter by passing an appropriate order under Section 433 (c) of the Code. The sentence of imprisonment was directed to be suspended on furnishing personal bond and furnishing surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

( 5 ) IN support of the appeal the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) submitted that the power of commutation is not available to a Court and it is the exclusive domain of the executive. It was, therefore, submitted that the course adopted by the High Court is unsustainable.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent- accused submitted that on the peculiar facts of this case no interference is called for. Though strictly speaking the High Court had no power of commutation, yet direction was given to the state Government to formalize the order of commutation on deposit of the enhanced fine and same cannot be faulted.

( 7 ) SECTION 432 of the Code corresponds to and reproduces almost word for word Section 401 and sub-section (3) of Section 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1889 (in short old Code ). Sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 432 reproduce word for word sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 401 of the old Code. Sub- section (5) reproduces word for work sub-section (6) of the old Section. Sub-section (6) similarly reproduces sub-section (4-A) of the old section. Sub-section (5) of old Section 401 had been omitted earlier in 1950. Sub-section (7) corresponds to sub-section (3) of Section 402 of the old Code. The main paragraph and clause (a) reproduce the old provision word for word without any change. Clause (b) is slightly different, but without a