LexK.P. SINGH versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) 9 S.C.R. 483 K.P. SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (Criminal Appeal No. 1264 OF 2015) SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 [T.S. THAKUR AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] A B Sentence/Sentencing - Quantum of sentence - Determination of- On facts, the appellant accepted bribe of C Rs. 7001- - Court below concurrently convicted the appellant for the offence punishable uls. 8 of the 1988Act-As regards sentence, award of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 5, 0001- by the trial court was reduced to one year besides a fine of Rs. 5, 0001- and default sentence 0 of imprisonment for a period of two months by the High Court - On appeal, held: Per Gowda J: Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, that the main accused-public servant against whom the charges were leveled under the 1988 Act, was acquitted for want of evidence on record, and E the said order has attained finality; and that pursuant to order by this Court, the appellant surrendered to the Jail and has served the sentence for more than 7. 5 months and has paid the fine amount awarded by the courts below, to meet the ends of justice the period of sentence awarded to the appellant F reduced to the period already undergone by him- Thus, the order of High Court is modified accordingly- Per Thakur J: Determining the adequacy of sentence to be awarded in a given case is not an easy task, just as evolving a uniform sentencing policy is a tough call because the quantum of G sentence depends upon a variety of factors including mitigating circumstances peculiar to a given case - Since the trial and appeal proceedings are pending for nearly 17 483 H 484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R. A years causing immense trauma, mental incarnation and anguish to the appellant; that the bribe amount was just about Rs. 7001-; and that the appellant has already undergone 7~ months against the statutory minimum of 6 months imprisonment, the reduction of the sentence is correct - B Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988 - s. 8. B.G Goswami v. Delhi Administration (1974) 3 SCC 85: 1974 (1) SCR 222; Dologovinda Mohanty v. State ofOrissa (1979) 4 SCC 557;M. W Mohiuddin v. State of Maharashtra C (1995) 3 SCC 567: 1995 ( 2) SCR 864; Ghulam Din Buch etc. etc. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1996) 9 SCC 239: 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 1121; State of Maharashtra v. Rashid Babubhai Mulani (2006) 1 SCC 407: 2006 (1 ) SCR 189 ;Bechaarbhai S. Prajapati v. State of Gujarat (2008) 11 SCC D 163: 2008 (3) SCR 634; V.K. Verma v. CBI (2014) 3 SCC 485:2014 (1) SCR 1063 ;Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall v. State ofGujarat2014 (4) Crimes 455 (SC)- referred to. Case Law Reference .E 1974 (1) SCR 222 referred to. Para 4 (1979) 4 sec 557 referred to. Para 5 1995 ( 2) SCR 864 referred to. Para 6 F 1996 ( 3) SCR 1121 referred to. Para 7 2006 (1 ) SCR 189 referred to. Para 8 · 2008 (3) SCR 634 referred to. Para 9 G 2014 (1) SCR 1063 referred to. · Para 10 2014 (4) Crimes 455 (SC) referred to. Para 11 H CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal No. 1264 of2015. K.P. SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 485 From the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2014 of the A High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal A. No. 758 of 2008. Radha Shyam Jena, J. Samal for the Appellant. B K. L. Janjani, Shailender Saini, D.S. Mahra for the Respondent. The Orders of the Court were delivered by V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. Leave granted. c 2. The present criminal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. A. No. 758 of 2008, wherein it has affirmed the conviction against the D appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter "the P. C. Act") and reduced sentence awarded from 2 years to 1 year retaining Rs.5000/- fine imposed with default sentence of 2 months after re-appreciation of evidence of the prosecution E witnesses no.6, 9 and 13 and accepted their evidence as cogent to prove the charge levelled against him in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Various legal contentions have been urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant before this Court questioning the correctness of the judgment F and order reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed - upon him from 2 years to 1 year with fine amount of Rs.5,000/ - and in default sentence as mentioned above. This Court vide i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.