AMBI RAM versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 656 · Decided: 05-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
656                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
AMBI RAM
v.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 1723 of 2009)
FEBRUARY  05, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – s.5(2) – Appellant
accepted illegal gratification – Trial Court convicted the appellant
for the offences punishable u/s.5(2) of the PC Act r/w. s.161 of the
IPC – He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- u/s.5(2) of the
PC Act – Also, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of three years u/s.161 IPC – Both the sentences under
the PC Act and the IPC were to run concurrently – High Court
maintained the conviction and reduced the quantum of sentence to
one year under both the provisions of the Act – Both the sentences
were to run concurrently – High Court also reduced the fine amount
of Rs.5000/- to Rs.3000/- – Appellant pleaded for the reduction of
the jail sentence – On appeal, held: Proviso to s.5(2) of the PC Act
empowers the Court to impose sentence of imprisonment of less than
one year provided any special reasons are recorded in writing in
support of imposing such reduce sentence of less than one year –
In instant case, there were eight reasons which satisfied the
requirements of proviso to s.5(2) of the PC Act – Firstly, the incident
was of the year 1985; Secondly, this case was pending for last 34
years; Thirdly, the appellant had reached to the age of 78 years;
Fourthly, he was suffering from heart ailment; Fifthly, he has already
undergone total jail sentence of one month and ten days during the
trial and after conviction; Sixthly, he was on bail for last 34 years
and had neither indulged in any criminal activities nor breached
any of the bail conditions; Seventhly, the bribe amount was Rs.1200/
-; lastly, in the last 34 years, he had suffered immense trauma, mental
agony and anguish – Thus, jail sentence passed by the Courts below
reduced to “what is already undergone by the appellant”, i.e. one
month & ten days and fine amount of Rs.3000/- enhanced to
Rs.10,000/- Penal Code, 1860 – s.161
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 656
656
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
657
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Reading of Section 5 (2) of the PC Act shows
that it provides that any public servant, who commits criminal
misconduct, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to fine. The proviso then
empowers the Court to impose sentence of imprisonment of less
than one year provided any special reasons are recorded in writing
in support of imposing such reduce sentence of less than one
year. [Paras 15 and 16][660-F, G]
2. It is, therefore, clear that the Court is empowered to
impose a sentence, which may vary from 1 year to 7 years with
fine. However, in a particular case, the Court finds that there are
some special reasons in favour of the accused then the Court is
empowered to impose imprisonment of less than one year
provided those special reasons are set out in writing in support
of imposing sentence less than one year. So far as imposing of
fine is concerned, it is mandatory while imposing any jail sentence.
How much fine should be imposed depend upon the facts of each
case.[Para 17][660-H; 661-A]
3. Keeping in view the statement of law laid down by this
Court and examining the facts of the case at hand, this Court
finds that Firstly, the incident is of the year 1985; Secondly, this
case is pending for the last 34 years; Thirdly, the appellant has
now reached to the age of 78 years; Fourthly, he is suffering from
heart ailment, as stated by the counsel for the appellant, and is
also not keeping well; Fifthly, he has so far, during the trial and
after suffering conviction, undergone total jail sentence of one
month and 10 days; Sixthly, he has been on bail throughout for
the last 34 years and did not indulge in any criminal activities nor
breached any conditions of the bail granted to him; Seventhly,
the bribe amount was Rs.1200/-; and lastly, in the last 34 years,
he has suffered immense trauma,  mental agony  and anguish.
[Para 20][662-C-D]
K.P. Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2015) 15 SCC 497
– relied on.
AMBI RAM v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
658                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
4. The aforesaid 8 reasons which are the special reasons
satisfy t

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