B. G. GOSWAMI versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 04-05-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: I.D. DUA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

222 
B. G. GOSWAMI 
v. 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION 
May 4, 1973 
[K. K MATHEW AND I. D. DUA, JJ.J 
P1·erc11tion of Corruption Act (2 of 1947), Ss. 4(1), 5(1) a1t:l (2)-Statu. 
tory presu111plio11, if applicable. 
Practicc-5entence-Principles for imposing sentence of ilnpriso1une1u, 
(a) \Vith respect to the offence under s. 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1947, the statutory presumption under s. 4(1) of the A-;t, 
against the accused, is 'not available. 
R. C. 1'.fellla v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1420, referred to. 
{b) Under s. 5{1){d) read \vith s. 5(2), the minimum sentence prescribed 
is one year RI and a sentence for a lesser period can be imposed for special . 
reasons to be recorded in writing by the Court. 
A· 
B 
c 
In the present case, the appellant was convicted for offences under Ss. 5 ( 1) {d) 
and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under s. "161. I.P.C. 
Sentence of imprisonment and fine were imposed for each of the offe.nces, and 
the sentences of imprisonn1ent were directed to run concurrently. 
The High 
D 
Court in appeal. reduced the sentence to 1 year R.I. and maintained the fin~. 
The lli~h Court and the trial Court relied on the statutory presun1ption. 
In appeal to this Court, 
· 
· HELD : (i) The offence was committed 7 years ago and criminal proceedings 
lasting for such a Jong time would by itself mean considerable harassn1cnt for 
an accused person. 
Therefore, it would not be fair or just to further prolong 
the proceedings by remanding the case to the trial Court. to examine the evidence 
E 
afresh after ignoring the 3tatutory presumption. f226E~F] 
(2) This Court also docs not exafnine the evidence for itself in appeals. 
under Art. 136 except when interests of justice so demand. 
In the i!'.'stant case, 
the same facts constitute the offence under s. 161. I.P.C. to which the statutory 
presumption under s. 4( 1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is ad1nittedly 
applicable. 
There is thus no question of grave. failure of justice or of a 
~uilty person escaping justice. if this Court does not 
exan1ine 
the 
evidence 
tor determining the guilt of the ·appellant under Ss. 5(1) (d) and 5(2) of the' 
F 
Act. 
f226B-C, F-Gl 
(3) The question of sentence is always a difficult question requiring a 
proper adjustment of the reforn1atory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punish-
ment. 
In the instant case. considering the facts .that the appellant is going to 
lose his iob and has to earn a Jiving for himself and members of his family, 
the ends of justice· would be met by imposing a . fine instead of sending him 
back to jail (the appe11ant was on bail) after 7 years of agony and harassment 
of criminal proceedings. 
[227 A-B, D-E~ 
· 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
23 
of 1970. 
· 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated October 
29, ·1969 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal 
No. 103 of 1967. 
R. L. Kohli,· for the appellant. 
H. R. Khanna, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
•
'
!~
~ 
;>
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
B. G. GOSWAMI V, D.ELll! AD~IN. (Dua, J.) 
223 
DUA, J.-The appellan( in this appeal by special leave rhallenges 
1he judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the High Court of 
Delhi dated October 29, 1969 upholding; on appeal, the appellant's 
conviction under section 5(2) read with section 5(l)(d) of the Pre-
vention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under sec. 
l61, I.P.C. 
The 
Special Judge convicting the appellant by his order dated May 24, 1967, 
had imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for H years and also 
imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- with three months' further imprisonment 
in case of default of payment of fine under section 5 (2) 
read with 
section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; a similar subs-
, tantive sentence of imprisonment was imposed 
under section 
161, 
I.P.C. 
Both the substantive sentences were to run concurrently. The 
High Court on appeal reduced the substantive sentence of imprison-
ment under both counts to rigorous imprisonment for one year .each. 
The sentence of fine and imprisonment in default of paym~nt of fine 
\V-35 ;.naintained. 
· 
Shri R. L. Kohli, the learned counsel for the appellant has addressed 
elaborate arguments in support of this appeal and has severely criti· 
ciscd the judgments and orders of both the courts below. 
Before con· 
sidcring the grounds of challenge, we may appropriately refer to 

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