Back
2007 Supreme(SC) 1268
2007(6) Supreme 585
Supreme Court of india
(From Kerala High Court)
C.K. Thakker & Altamas Kabir, JJ.
K. Radhai — Petitioner
versu
C.B.I. Cochin Unit — Respondent
Writ Petition (crl.) 1303 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1290 OF 2007)
Decided on : 28-09-2007
important point
When a person was sentenced for two years on three counts and High Court reduced it to one year on two counts; the sentence under the third count should also have been reduced similarly.
Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) and sections 420 and 468, IPC – Appellant convicted for offences under all the sections and sentenced for two years on each count – High Court maintaining the convictions but reducing the sentence to one year under section 13 of PC Act and section 420 of IPC, but not mentioning anything about sentence u/s 468, IPC – As a result, effect of reducing sentence on two counts was nullified and appellant was undergoing imprisonment for two years – While maintaining the conviction u/s 468, IPC also, sentence thereunder reduced to one year. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
Appellant was employed as a Clerk in Syndicate Bank at Fort Branch, Trivendrum. It was the case of the prosecution that a false bank account got opened with Account No. 15799 in the said Branch and an amount of Rs.42,000/- was fraudulently withdrawn by the accused. After investigation, charge was framed against the accused-appellant in the Court of the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Special Judge, after appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses, held the charge proved, convicted the appellant and ordered her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468, IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Sections 465 and 471, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years for an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Fine was also imposed by the Court.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal. The High Court held that no illegality was committed by the trial Court in finding the appellant-accused guilty and in convicting her. With regard to sentence, however, the High Court observed that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, liberal view was required to be taken.
Findings of the Court:
In the interest of justice, when sentence on two counts was reduced, the sentence on third count also reduced to the same extent.
Result : Appeal allowed to the extent indi cated.
judgment
C.K. THAKKER, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.This appeal is filed against the judgment and final order passed by the High Court of Kerala on October 12, 2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1997. By the said appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant recorded by the Court of the Special Judge (CBI), Ernakulam on December 27, 1996 but reduced the sentence.
3.The facts in nutshell are that the appellant was employed as a Clerk in Syndicate Bank at Fort Branch, Trivendrum. It was the case of the prosecution that a false bank account got opened with Account No. 15799 in the said Branch and an amount of Rs.42,000/- was fraudulently withdrawn by the accused. After investigation, charge was framed against the accused-appellant in the Court of the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4.The Special Judge, after appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses, held the charge proved, convicted the appellant and ordered her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468, IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Sections 465 and 471, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years for an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Fine was also imposed by the Court.
5.Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal. The High Court held that no illegality was committed by the trial Court in finding the appellant-accused guilty and in convicting her. With regard to sentence, however, the High Court observed that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, liberal view was required to be taken. The High Court, therefore, in the operative part of the judgment, observed :
Last question is regarding the punishment. Counsel for the appellant argued that the alleged offence was in 1993 and the money was taken during a catastrophic situation as mentioned in Ext.P19. It is further submitted that her husband has deserted her, that she has to maintain her children, that she lost the job also because of the misconduct she has committed and that a lenient view may be taken. Taking into account all these circumstances together, the sentence of imprisonment for two years each imposed for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 420 IPC is reduced to an imprisonment for one year each. No interference is required with regard to the imposition of fine or punishment imposed for other offences. The sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
6.The appellant approached this Court against the order passed by the High Court. On March 9, 2007, when the matter was called out for admission hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel that though the sentence of imprisonment for two years imposed by the trial Court for an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was reduced from two years to one year as also sentence of imprisonment for two years for an offence punishable under Section 420, IPC was reduced from two years to one year, no order of reduction of sentence was passed so far as the offence punishable under Section 468, IPC was concerned. The resultant effect was that though the High Court had reduced substantive sentence of the appellant-accused from two years to one year for certain offences, sentence of two years imposed on the appellant-accused has remained as it is in view of the fact that for an offence punishable under Section 468, IPC, no reduction was ordered and the sentence imposed by the trial Court continued to remain as it was. Notice was, therefore, issued by the Court only on question of reduction
