The Supreme Court clarified that it retains discretion to consider all relevant points in an appeal, even when initially limited notice is issued, emphasizing the importance of justice in sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant was convicted for commission of offences punishable under Section 468 r/w Section 120(B), Section 271 and 465 r/w Section 120(B) and Section 420 r/w Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860¹ [IPC] as well as Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.² [PC Act]

2. For all but one of the offences punishable under the IPC, sentence of two years’ rigorous imprisonment³ [RI] was imposed on the appellant. For the offence under Section 271 and 465 r/w Section 120(B), sentence of R.I. for a year was imposed. Insofar as the offence punishable under sub-section (1)(d) read with sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the PC Act is concerned, the appellant was sentenced to three years’ R.I.

3. The conviction and sentence dated 31st July, 2009 having been carried by the appellant to the High Court of Gauhati in an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the impugned judgment and order dated 27th September, 2013 of a learned single Judge affirmed the same.

4. The appellant thereafter approached this Court with a special leave petition out of which this criminal appeal, by special leave, arises.

5. On 3rd January, 2014, a coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:

“Issue notice confined to the question as to whether the petitioner could have been convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and on the quantum of sentence for the other offences.”

6. Service effected, this Court heard the parties and granted leave on 12th September, 2014 whereafter the appellant was enlarged on bail on 12th October, 2015.

7. Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, having commenced his argument assailing the findings returned by the trial court in respect of the offences under the IPC, which were found to be proved, Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent, invited our attention to the order issuing limited notice.

8. We then called upon Mr. Baruah to overcome the objection raised that having regard to the limited scope of the notice to show cause, it is not open to us to expand the scope of the appeal, hear him on all the points and record an order acquitting the appellant, if satisfied. He referred to the decisions of this Court in Taherakhatoon (D) by LRs. vs. Salambin Mohammad, (1999) 2 SCC 635 to support his contention that this Court having granted leave without any restriction, it is a fit and proper case where we ought to hear him on the merits of all the points that are available to be taken on behalf of the appellant for obtaining a clear acquittal.

9. In Taherakhatoon (supra), this Court held that:

“15. It is now well settled that though special leave is granted, the discretionary power which vested in the Court at the stage of the special leave petition continues to remain with the Court even at the stage when the appeal comes up for hearing and when both sides are heard on merits in the appeal. This principle is applicable to all kinds of appeals admitted by special leave under Article 136, irrespective of the nature of the subject-matter.”

xxx xxx xxx

“20. In view of the above decisions, even though we are now dealing with the appeal after grant of special leave, we are not bound to go into merits and even if we do so and declare the law or point out the error - still we may not interfere if the justice of the case on facts does not require interference or if we feel that the relief could be moulded in a different fashion.”

10. Next, Mr. Baruah placed the decision of this Court in Yomeshbhai Pranshankar Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 6 SCC 312 in support of his contention that notwithstanding limited notice having been issued, the scope of the appeal could be expanded by this Court. The opinion of the coordinate Bench expressed in the said decision reads thus:

“4. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that though at