RAMASHRAYA CHAKRAVARTI versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 713 · Decided: 13-11-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
' 
' .. 
713 
RAMASHRA YA CHAKRA V ARTI 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
November 13, 1975 
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Sentence-Factors to <be considered in determining sentence-1.P.C. Section 
409 and 467. 
} 
The appellant was a Circle Organizer in the Tribal Welfare Department. 
He was entrusted with the distribution of stipends to adivasl students of the 
Tribal Welfare Department School. He misappropriated a sum of Rs. 5001 · 
meant for 4 students and also forged certain entries in the bills. 
He was con-
victed under section 409 and section 467 of J.P.C. by the Sessions Judge and 
sentenced to 4 years ri'goious imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5001-. The High 
Court on appeal maintained the convictign but reduced the sentence to 2 years 
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 /-. 
On an appeal by Special leave limited only to the question of sentence. 
HELD : 1. 
To adjust the duration of imprisonment to the gravity of a 
particular offence is not always an easy task. It is always a matter of judicial 
discretion subject to any mandatory minimum prescribed 'by Jaw. 
In judging 
the adequacy of a sentence, the nature of the offence, the circumstances of its 
GQmmission, the age and character of the offender, injury to individuals or to 
Society, effect of the punishment on the offender, eye to correction or reforma-
tion of the offender, are some among3t many other factors which would be 
ordinarily taken into consideration by courts. 
[713GH, 714-FG] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
2. Trial Courts in this country already over-burdened with work have hardly 
any time- to set apart for sentencing reflection. In a good system of adminis, 
E 
trati'on of criminal justice pre-sentence investigation may be of great sociologi-
cal value. 
Throughout the world humanitarianism is permeating into peno-
logy and the courts are expected to discharge their appropriate roles. 
[714 GH] 
3. Wi!hou~ minimising the seriousness of the offence, having regard to the 
circumstances of the case, the sentence was rednced from 2 years ·to one 
year. 
[715-C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 154 
of 1975. 
)_ 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
18th February 1975 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur 
in Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 1972. 
Sarju Prasad and S. N. Prasad for the Appellant. 
Ram Panjwani, Dy. Advocate General, M.P., H. S. 
Parihar and 
l. N. Shrofj for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GoswAMI, J.-To adjust the duration of imprisonment to the gravity 
of a particular offence is not always an easy task. Sentencing involves 
an element of guessing but often settles down to practice obtaining in 
a p:irticular court with inevitable differences arising in the context of 
the times and events in the light of social imperatives. It is always a 
F 
.G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
714 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 2 S.C.R. 
matter of judicial discretion subject to any mandatory minimum pres--
cribed by law. 
Hegel in his 'Philosophy of Right' pithily put the difficulty as. 
follows : -
. 
"Reason cannot i;Ietermine, nor can the concept provide 
any principle whose applicatfon could decide whether justice 
requires for an offence (i) a corporal punishment of forty 
lashes or thirty-nine, or (ii) a fine of five dollars or four 
dollars ninety-three, four, etc., cents, or (iii) imprisonment 
of a year or three hundred and sixty-four, three, etc., days, 
or a year and one, -two, or three days. And yet injustice is . 
done at once if there is one lash too many, or one dollar or 
one cent, one week in prison or one day, too many or too 
few". 
The present appeal by special leave being limited to sente'ace we-
are to consider about the appropriate deserts for the appellant in this 
case. 
The appellant was a Circle Organiser in the Tribal Welfare Depart-
mrnt at Lohandiguda in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He was en-
trusted with the distribution of stipends to Adivasi students of the Tri-
bal Welfare Department School. He misappropriate_d a sum ot 
Rs. 500 /- meant for four students and also forged certain entries in 
the bills. 
He was convicted under section 409 and section 467 IPC 
by the Sessions Judge and sentenced for each head of charge to con-
current four years' 
rigorous 
imprisonment and also 
to a fine 
of 
Rs. 500/-, in default to rigorous imprisonment for six months. 
The 
fligh Court on appeal maintained the conviction but reduced the sen-

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.