IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
M.Gopalakrishnan (Died) Rep. By his LR Mrs.Shakila Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
State by Deputy Superintendent of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.223 of 2009
Decided on : 04-02-2022
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 120-B r/w 420 - Appeal Against Convicting - Challenging conviction and sentence imposed as set out above A1 filed this appeal - Pending appeal A1 died and at instance of his wife by order leave was granted to continue appeal - Where a sentence of fine is imposed under sub-section (2) of section 13 or section 14, the court is fixing the amount of the fine shall take into consideration the amount or the value of the property, if any, which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence or where the conviction is for an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the pecuniary resources or property referred to in that clause for which the accused person is unable to account satisfactorily, Para 19,20
Finding of the Court:
There is no finding given by trial court that A1 had obtained pecuniary advantage or obtained any valuable property while committing offence - In those this court is of considered view that imposing amount as fine on A1 is highly excessive and imposing such huge amount as fine does not warrant in view of undisputed facts of this case - While imposing fine trial court should have taken into consideration nature of charges and undisputed offence and circumstances in which offences were committed and the pecuniary advantage obtained by accused person - Therefore considering this court is of the view that fine imposed by trial court is required to be modified - This court has been informed that pursuant to orders passed by this court on petition filed by deceased appellant seeking suspension of sentence deceased appellant paid a sum of amount as part of a total fine imposed on him.
Result: Criminal Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is against the judgment dated 27.04.2009 in C.C.No.66 of 2000 on the file of the learned XI Additional Judge, Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai, convicting and sentencing A-1 (since deceased) to undergo rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine under various charges, the details of which will be narrated at the appropriate place in this Judgment.
2. There were totally 6 accused in the case and the deceased appellant was arrayed as A1. A1 to A6 stood charged for various offences as detailed below:-
| Sl.No. | Accused | Stood Charged under |
| 1 | A1 to A6 | Section 120-B r/w 420 of IPC, Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 |
| 2 | A2 | Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 |
| 3 | A1 | Section 420 of IPC |
| 4 | A1 | Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 |
| 5 | A2 | Section 420 of IPC |
| 6 | A2 | Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 |
| 7 | A1 and A2 | Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 |
| 8 | A1 and A2 | Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 |
| 9 | A3 to A6 | Section 420 of IPC |
| 10 | A3 to A6 | Section 420 of IPC |
| 11 | A1 and A2 | Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 |
| 12 | A3 to A6 | Section 420 of IPC |
| 13 | A1 and A2 | Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 |
| 14 | A3 to A6 | Section 420 of IPC |
| 15 | A1 and A2 | Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 |
| 16 | A5 | Section 420 of IPC |
| 17 | A1 and A2 | Section 420 of IPC |
| 18 | A1 and A2 | Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 |
| 19 | A3 to A6 | Section 420 of IPC |
| 20 | A1 and A2 | Section 109 r/w 420 of IPC |
Pending trial, A3 died and therefore, charges against him stood and the trial court, after full-fledged trial convicted A1 and A2 on certain charges framed against each of them and acquitted them from the other charges while A4 to A6 were acquitted from all the charges and sentenced A1 and A2 accordingly as detailed under:-
| Charge No. | Rank of the Accused | Penal provisions under which Accused was/were Convicted/Charges from which Accused was/were Acquitted | Quantum of Sentence Imposed by the trial court on A1 and A2/Finding against A3 to A6 |
| 1 | A1 | Section 120-B r/w 420 of IPC, Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,00,000/- in default to undergo RI for 1 Years
|
|
| A2 | Section 120-B r/w 420 of IPC, Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,00,000/- in default to undergo RI for 1 Years |
|
| A3 | Section 120-B r/w 420 of IPC, Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | Charges Abated
|
|
| A4 to A6 | Section 120-B r/w 420 of IPC, Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | Acquitted
|
| 2 | A2 | Section5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 | RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,00,000/- in default to undergo RI for 1 years |
| 3 | A1 | Section 420 of IPC | RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,00,000/- in default to undergo RI for 1 years |
| 4 | A1 | Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of | |
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.