'
'
A
214
B
c
D
HARBANS SINGH
v.
'
STATE OF PUNJAB
July 25, 1984
[D.A. DESAI AND A. VARADARAIAN, JJ.J
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 9 Section 5 (2).
Court to record in writing 'special reasons' when awarding less than the
minilnum sentence-High Court reducing sentenC'e irnposed by trial court to
ser1tence already undergone-Whether valid and legal.
Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 prescribes a
minimum sentence and discretion is conferred on the Court to give less than
the minimnm for any 'special reasons' to be recorded in writing .. [109B]
What constitute 'special reasons' for the purpose of Section 5 (2) was laid
down in Meet Singh v. State of Pun/ab, [1980] 2 S.C.R 1152. [109B]
In the instant case1 the High Court for reasons·:utter\} untenable inter-
E
fered with the sentence imposed by the trial court and reduced it to the sen-
teni;e already undergone. It erred in sho\Ying a misplaced sympathy unsustain-
able in law. [214H; 215A)
F
CRIMINAL APPEALLATB JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 1481 of 1984.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 23rd January, 1984
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cr!. Appeal No. 45 of
1983.
Harbans Lal and Balmokand Goyal for the Petitioner.
G
The Order of the Court was delivered by
DrsAI, J.
We are not inclined to grant special leave, but
we make this short speaking order in order to keep the record
straight that the dismissal of the special leave petition does not
tentamount to affirmance of the order of the learned Judge of the
H
High Court ,who for reasons utterly untenable interfered with teh
tiARBAN} SlNGl(v. l' J .~JAB :coisai, i.)
21.5
scm'til\:e imposed by the trial court and reduced it to sentence
already undergone which in the facts and circumstanc'es of the
case was wholly impermissible.
In Meet Singil v. State of Punjab,(1 \ this Court pointed out
that Sec.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act prescribes a
minimum sentence and discretion is conferred on the court to give
less than the minimum for any special reasons to be recorded in
writing. This Court examined what constitute special reasons for
the purpose of Sec.5(2) and pointed out that the reasons which
weighed with the learned Judge in reducing the sentence to the
sentence undergone could not be special reasons. .Therefore,
in our view, the learned Judge was entirely in errnr in sho-
wing a misplaced sympathy unsustainable in law. With these obser-
vations wo:: reject the special leave p ~tition .
N.V.K.
Petition dismissed.
(I) [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1152
B
G
D
Lex