LexK. POUNAMMAL versus STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1371 : 2025 INSC 1014 K. Pounammal v. State Represented by Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 1716 of 2011) 21 August 2025 [N.V. Anjaria* and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the reduction of sentence awarded to the inspector convicted and sentenced u/ss.7 and 13(2) rw s.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a bribe from a factory supervisor for issuing registration certificate. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) – Illegal gratification – Demand and acceptance by public servant – Reduction of sentence – Inspector of Central Excise convicted and sentenced u/ss.7 and 13(2) rw s.13(1)(d) for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹300 from a factory supervisor for issuing registration certificate – Reduction of sentence awarded to the inspector sought: Held: More than two decades have passed by since the incident took place – Inspector underwent imprisonment for 31 days – She is a widow, aged 75 years, staying alone, husband having died, belongs to scheduled caste and has been spending her life negotiating all hardships – Prolongation of a criminal case for an unreasonable period is in itself a kind of suffering, amounting to mental incarceration and mental agony for the person facing such proceedings – On facts, it is appropriate that she may not be made to undergo the imprisonment again – In the totality of the facts and circumstances, the imprisonment already undergone by her is treated to be adequate sentence – Conviction of the Inspector upheld, however, sentence awarded reduced to the actual undergone – Imposition of fine increased, the inspector to pay fine of ₹25,000/- over and above originally imposed. [Paras 8-11] Sentence/Sentencing – Principles guiding the sentencing process – Stated. [Paras 6, 6.1, 7] * Author 1372 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited M.W. Mohiuddin v. State of Maharashtra [1995] 2 SCR 864 : (1995) 3 SCC 567; Bechaarbhai S. Prajapati v. State of Gujarat [2008] 3 SCR 634 : (2008) 11 SCC 163; Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall v. State of Gujarat (2015) 15 SCC 506; B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Admn. [1974] 1 SCR 222 : (1974) 3 SCC 85; Dologovinda Mohanty v. State of Orissa (1979) 4 SCC 557; State of Maharashtra v. Rashid B. Mulani [2006] 1 SCR 189 : (2006) 1 SCC 407; K.P. Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2015] 9 SCR 483 : (2015) 15 SCC 497 – referred to. List of Acts Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. List of Keywords Illegal gratification; Demand and acceptance by public servant; Reduction of sentence; Inspector of Central Excise; Bribe; Factory supervisor; Registration certificate; Imprisonment for 31 days; Widow lady; Scheduled caste; Negotiating all hardships; Prolongation of a criminal case; Unreasonable period; Mental incarceration; Mental agony; Adequate sentence; Imposition of fine; Principles guiding the sentencing process. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1716 of 2011 From the Judgment and Order dated 04.08.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRLA No. 1750 of 2003 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: V Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv., M. A. Chinnasamy, C Raghavendren, Mrs. C Rubavathi, Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Padhmanabha Raja K R. Advs. for the Respondent: Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Ms. R.bala, Sr. Adv., Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Amit Sharma-b, Ms. Archana Surve Shinde, Ms. Sunanda Shukla. [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1373 K. Pounammal v. State Represented by Inspector of Police Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment N.V. Anjaria, J. Heard learned counsel Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy for the appellant and learned counsel Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria for the respondent-State. 2. This criminal appeal by the appellant-convict is directed against judgment and order dated 4th August, 2010 of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2003, whereby the High Court confirmed judgment and order delivered by the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “CBI”), Madurai in Criminal Case No. 2 of 2003 dated 5th November, 2003, convicting the appellant for the offences under Section 7, Section 13(2) read section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and with fine of ₹1000/- with default clause in respect of the of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.