LexK.RADHAI versus C.B.I., COCHIN UNIT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
)_ A K.RADHAI v. C.B.I., COCHIN UNIT ''I SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 8 [C.K. THAKKERANDALTAMASKABIR,JJ.) Service Law: c Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; S. 13(l)(d) r/w S. 13(2)/Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 420, 465, 468 and 471: Corruption-Bank employee allegedly withdrawn certain amount from bank account fraudulently-Trial Court found accused-employee guilty of committing offences u/ss. 420 and 468 !PC and u/s. 13(2) rl D w s.13 (1 )( d) of 1988 Act and sentenced her accordingly-On appeal, High Court affirmed conviction reducing sentence from 2 years to 1 year for offences punishable u/ss. 420 !PC and s.13(2) rlw S.13(J)(d) of the 1988 Act, but no reduction in sentence was ordered for offence punishable u/s. 468 !PC-On appeal, Held: On the facts and in the E circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met if conviction of the accused is maintained but substantive sentence imposed on her u/s. 468 IPC is reduced from two years to one year-Directions issued accordingly-Sentencing. F Appellant was employed as a Clerk in a Bank. According to the Prosecution, the appellant got opened a false bank account in the b~nk and fraudulently withdrawn an amount of Rs.42,000/-. After investigation, charges were framed against the accused-appellant for committing offences punishable under Sections465,471and420 of the G Indian Penal Code as also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Trial Court held the charge proved against the appellant, convicted and ordered her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for H 380 \ -1-· ( , >--· I , K. RADHAI v. C.B.I., COCHIN UNIT 381 six months each under Sections 465 and 471 IPC and rigorous A imprisonment for two years for an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also imposed fine. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Courtconfirmed the conviction reducing the sentence to one year for offences punishable u/s.13(2) r/w B s.13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also u/s.420 IPC. ')- However, no reduction in sentence was ordered by the High Court for ~ offence punishable u/s.468 IPC. Hence the present appeal. Accused-appellant contended that though the High Court had c reduced substantive sentence from two years to one year for certain offences, however, sentence of two years imposed on her has remained as it is, in view of the fact that no reduction in sentence for the offence punishable u/s.468 IPC was ordered and the sentence of two years as imposed by the trial Court continued to remain as it was. D L ..... Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:l.1. It appears thatthe High Court was of the view that an order of conviction recorded by the trial Court did not call for interference and, hence, it confmned the conviction of the appellant. It, E however, exercised discretion by reducing the sentence imposed on the appellant. Precisely, because of that the High Court reduced the sentence from two years to one year for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as also for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Since there was no mention of Section 468 IPC, F the sentence of two years imposed on the appellant has remained as it was. [Para8) (384-C-D) - 1.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met if conviction of the appellant-accused for an offence G ~ punishable under Section 468 IPC is maintained but the substantive sentence imposed on her for the said offence is reduced from two years to one year. [Para 9) [384-E) 1.3. The appellant-accused who is convicted for offences punishable H 382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R. A under the Indian Penal Code and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. [Para 10] [384-G] B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1303 of 2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 12. l 0.2006 of the High Court ofKerala at Emakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 9of1997. Romy Chacko for the Appellant. c P. Panneswaran for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and final orde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.