LexMUNILAL MOCHI versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 439
MUNILAL MOCHI
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No .. 1429 bf 2011)
JULY 21, 2011
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.}
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:
A
B
ss.5(1),(c)(d), 5(2) and 5(3), proviso - Minimum sentence c
of one year - Power of Court to reduce the sentence -
Conviction by trial court u/ss. 120-8, 420, 467, 468, 471-A /PC
rlw ss.5(1)(d), 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act- Upheld
by High Court reducing sentence from 2~ years to 1 ~ years
RI - Plea before Supreme Court for reducing the sentence 0
to the period already undergone - HELD: In view of the
proviso to s.5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the
facts and circumstances of the case that the accused is 71
years of age and has already undergone 6 months
imprisonment, that from the date of occurrence, 29 years have E
passed and there is no record to show that the accused was
involved in any other criminal case, ends of justice would be
met by modifying the sentence to the period already
undergone - Ordered accordingly - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.
120-8, 420, 467, 468, 471-A /PC - Sentence/Sentencing.
F
On 14.09.1983, the Dy. S.P. Cabinet (Vigilance)
Department, Gov~rnment of Bihar, Patna, made a written
complaint before the Office-in-charge, Vigilance Police
Station, Patna, alleging that in six Schemes under
National Rural Employment Programme ("NREP") after G
preliminary enquiry, it was detected that Junior Engineer/
agents
of
Department/Agency
concerned
misappropriated government money in the said Schemes
and committed offences punishable u/ss 120-8, 420, 467,
439
H
440
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
A 468, 471 (A) IPC and s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1 )(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. On the basis of the
said complaint, an FIR was lodged and a Vigilance Case
was registered. After investigation, a charge sheet was
submitted wherein the name of the appellant figured for
B the first time as an accused, after more than 5 years of
•,
registration of the FIR. The Special Judge (Vigilance)
convicted the appellant of the offences charged and
sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of
2% years and to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/-. On appeal, the
c High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the
sentence from 2% years to 1% years.
The instant appeal was confined only to the question
of sentence.
D
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The only bar against the appellant insofar
as reduction of sentence is, the minimum sentence
prescribed in s. 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
E Inasmuch as the appellant was also convicted u/ss
5(1)(c)(d) and 5(2) in the normal circumstance, the court
has to impose minimum sentence of 1 year. However, the
proviso appended to sub-s. (3) gives power to the court
to impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than 1 year
for any special reasons recorded in writing. [para 8) [444-
• .
F
C-G-H]
1.2 It is not in dispute that the occurrence related to
the period 1982-83. The appeltant retired from the post of
Deputy Collector on 01.10.2003, even before his
G conviction. He stood convicted by the trial court in 2004,
•
i.e., after a long period of 21 years. The High Court to.ok
more than 6 years to dispose of the appeal. The appellant
has undergone the ordeal of facing trial in an uncertainty
about the nature of conviction for such a long period. As
H on date, the appellant is 71 years of age and has already
MUNILAL MOCHI v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
441
"'
undergone 6 months imprisonment. From the date of A
occurrence, 29 years have passed. There is no record to
show that the appellant was involved in any other criminal
case. In the circumstances, ends of justice would be met
by modifying the sentence to the period already
, '
undergone. Ordered accordingly. [para 9] [445-A-F]
B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1429 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.07 .2010 of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl. Appeal (S.J.) No. 600 of c
2004.
Nagendra Rai, T. Mahipal for the Appellant.
Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas for the Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P.SATHASIVAM,J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the common final
E
judgment and order dated 28.07.2010 passed by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 600 of 2004 which was fExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.