A. WATI AO versus THE STATE OF MANIPUR

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 296 · Decided: 13-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
A. WAT! AO 
v 
THE STATE OF MANIPUR 
OCTOBER 13, 1995 
B 
IA.M. AHMADI, CJ AND B.L. HANSARIA, J.) 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 120-B 
Prevention of Co1111ption Act, 1947: Section S(J)(d). 
C 
Govemment Office1-Award of contract to a black listed Jinn at ex-
D 
tre111ely exorbitant rate~Mate1ial supjJ01ting charge of conuption and con-
spiracy---Conviction-Sentenc~Enhancen1ent by Su11renle Court-Factors 
relevant in sentencing. 
The appellant, a senior IAS Officer, was prosecuted under section 
120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with section S(l)(d) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution case was that he was 
a party to the conspiracy in giving a contract to a black listed firm at 
extremely exorbitant rates. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and 
imposed on him the sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000 as well as imprisonment 
E 
till the rising of the Court. Appellant's appeal was dismissed by the High 
Court. While imposing the sentence the Trial Court took into account 
various factors such as that (i) he was a respectable person; (ii) he has a 
number of dependents but there was certainty of his losing the job; (iii) it 
. was his first offence; and (iv) the spectre of delay was hanging on his head 
F 
for about live years. 
On ap1ieal this Court issued notice for enhancement of punishment 
to be imposed on the appellant while it was contended for him that the 
conviction was not maintainable because the prosecution has not fully 
discharged its onus to prove the appellant's guilt which was based on 
G circumstantial evidence. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. The involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy is so 
apparent that it cannot be said that there was any straining of the 
H circumstance to connect the appellant with the crime. The appellant had 
296 
A WAT! AO v. STATE [HANSAR!A. J.] 
297 
knowledge about the fact of black listing of the firm. As to the rates being A 
exorbitant, there is a clear finding of the Trial Court, which was endorsed 
by the High Court. Thus there were clinching materials to hold the 
appellant guilty of the offences charged. Accordingly, his conviction is 
upheld. [298-F, 299-B] 
B 
2. None of the factors taken into account by the Trial Court while 
in1posing sentence, except the delay to some extent make out a case for 
awarding sentence less than the minimum prescribed by the Act i.e. one 
year. Though the fact of delay of about five years could not have been a 
ground to award the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court, 
which really makes a mockery of the whole exercise, yet the delay does C 
require some reduction from the minimum prescribed. On the facts of this 
case, ends of justice would be met if a sentence of imprisonment for six 
months is awarded. [299-E, H, 300-A) 
S.P. Bhalllagar v. State of Maharashtra, [1979] 2 SCR 875, referred 
to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
698 of 1995. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.95 of the Assam High Court 
in Cr!. A. No. 12/88/4/88. 
E 
R.K. Dhawan, Vinod Kanth, and Navin Prakash, for the Appellant. 
Ms. S. Janani for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
HANSARIA, J. The appellant was convicted under S.120-B of the 
Penal Code read with S.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, 
by Special Judge, Manipur. He ~as sentenced to a tine of Rs. 10,000 and 
F 
to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. On appeal being preferred, the G 
Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court dismissed the same. The learned 
Judge deciding the appeal, however, granted, on oral prayer being made, 
leave, under Article 134(c) of the Constitution to prefer an appeal to this 
Court, albeit without specifying the question of law involved. 
2. While issuing notice in the appeal, the appellant was also asked to H 
A 
B 
c 
298 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 4S.C.R. 
show-cause as to why the punishment should not be enhanced. 
3. Dr. Dhawan, appearing for the appellant, has first contended that 
the conviction of the appellant itself is not tenable inasmuch as the onus 
of proof, which lies in a case where guilt is based on circumstantial 
evidence, as in this case, has not been fully discharged by prosecution. To 
sustain this submission, we have been referred to S.P. Bhatnagar v. State of 
Maharashtra, 11979) 2 SCR 875. As Dr. Dhawan strenuously contended that 
the test regarding proof laid down in Bhatnagar's case has not bee

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.