AB. BHASKARA RAO versus INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI VISAKHAPATNAM

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 718 · Decided: 23-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 718 
AB. BHASKARA RAO 
v. 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI VISAKHAPATNAM 
(Criminal Appeal No. 650 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- ss. 7, 13(1)(d)(ii) rl 
w s. 13(2) - Demand and acceptance of a meager amount 
C as illegal gratification by a public servant - Conviction of 
accused-appellant u/s. 7 with rigorous imprisonment for six 
months and uls. 13( 1 )( d)(ii) with rigorous imprisonment for one 
year - Upheld by the High Court - Appeal before Supreme 
Court - Issuance of notice limited to question of sentence only 
o - Held: When notice is issued confining to particular aspect! 
sentence, arguments would be heard only to that extent 
unless some extraordinary circumstance/material i$ shown to 
the Court - When the statute prescribes minimum sentence, 
long delay in disposal of appeal is not a ground for reduction 
E of sentence - That amount received by accused is meager 
as also that he lost his job after conviction, not a mitigating 
circumstance for reduction of sentence - Imposing lesser 
sentence than the minimum prescribed in the Statute is not 
permissible under Article 142 - Substantive provisions of a 
F Statute cannot be ignored ...:. Thus, the order passed by the 
trial judge as affirmed by the High Court is upheld -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Sentence/ 
Sentencing. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Exercise of 
G power under- Held: Power under Article 142 is a constitutional 
power and not restricted by statutory enactments - However, 
no order would be passed which would amount to supplant the 
substantive Jaw applicable or ignoring statutory provisions 
dealing with the subject - Powers under Article 142 are not 
H 
718 
A.B. BHASKARA RAO v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 
719 
CBI VISAKHAPATNAM 
meant to be exercised when their exercise may come directly A 
in conflict with what has been expressly provided for in statute 
dealing expressly with the subject - Exercise of power under 
Article 142 depends on the facts and circumstances of each 
case - Supreme Court under Article 142 would not ordinarily 
direct quashing of a case involving crime against the society 
B 
particularly, when courts below found that the charge leveled 
against the accused under the Act was made out and proved 
by the prosecution by placing acceptable evidence. 
Appellant, working as a Head Clerk in the Railway, 
C 
demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.200/- as illegal 
gratification. Charge sheet was filed against the 
appellant-accused for an offence punishable under 
Sections 7, 13(1 )(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Special Judge. 
The appellant was convicted under Section 7 of the Act D 
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a 
period of six months and fine of Rs.500/- and, in default, 
simple~imprisonment for one month. He was also 
convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read 
with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo 
E 
rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, 
in default, simple imprisonment for one month. Both the 
sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently. The 
High Court upheld the order of conviction and sentence. 
Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. 
F 
This Court issued notice in the instant matter 
confining to the quantum of sentence only. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. The provisions of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 alone are applicable since the 
incident occurred on 14.11.1997 i.e. subsequent to the 
Act. Section 7 of the Act relates to public servant taking 
gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of H 
720 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 
A an official act. If the said offence/charge is proved, the 
court has no other option but to impose sentence of 
imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but 
which may extend to five years and also liable to fine. 
Section 13 deals with criminal misconduct by a public 
B servant. As per sub-section (2) if any public servant 
commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with 
Imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one 
year but which may extend to seven years and shall also 
be liable to fine. The relaxation in the form of a proviso 
c to sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1947 which gives power to the court that 
for any sp

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