LexSHANTI LAL MEENA versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, CBI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 579
SHANTI LAL MEENA
v.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, CBI
(Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2015)
APRIL 07, 2015
[T. S. THAKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH AND
A
B
R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
C
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- ss. 7, 13(2) rw s.
13(1)(d) -
Commission of offence under -
Quantum of
sentence - Determination of- Public servant-Sub Inspector
of Police caught red-handed while accepting the bribe in the o
case at the investigation stage - Conviction for the offences
u/s. 7 and 13(2) rw s. 13(1 )(d) and sentenced to two years RI
for the offence u/s. 7 with a fine and RI for two years with fine
u/s. 13(2) rw s. 13(1 )(d) - Upheld by the High Court- Issue·
of quantum of sentence before this Court - Held: While E
awarding sentence in cases under the PC Act, the court
should bear in mind the expectation of the people of its
paramount duty to prevent corruption in society by providing
prompt conviction and stem sentence - Appellant was the
sub-inspector of police entrusted with the task of law F
enforcement- The keeper had become the poacher- There
is no serious scope for reforming the convicted public servant
-
The moment he is convicted, he loses his job -
Thus,
interference with the punishment awarded by the courts below G
not called for.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Ttiere is no serious scope for reforming
H
579
580
SUPREME COORIREPORTS'~l
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A the public servanfci:>nvicted under PC Act. The moment
he is convicted, he loses his job. Hence, there is no
significance to the theory of reformation of his conduct
in public serv;~~· J.~~E!'.'!IY. !.ele~v.~nto!>je.ci gf punishment
in such cases is denunciation and deterrence. That is
B the reason'.the'.Parlfament has'rrestricted1the judicial
discretion in imposing punishment. [Para 20) [588-F-G]
.
GI Li>. , \l) J li'1 '-li-\
'
1.~HrHP~:'~p,l_tie1,.c;~~:ffl~ ~'(1,~,d...;-f'~f.rp.priately
deterrent pumshm~pt ,ta1<1~gl n~,te,o( the nature of the
C offence,under thJ'Pre.Jelltion"of'ccRruption Act, 1988
a~np .t!!~-s~tu~¥of th~ Pl,l~!i.<; .~~cy,arrt_at_~e,.rn!e,•0!11t time,
PJ!c;>P!l!l. ~!J!JoseJiilUJ Ln ... ~~jµs_!ieflt<i.~li~e.ry:_syst~in Pf!4
tl]i;.__x~1Y 1.cipje,p~,qktbe.i,legi~!a.tl0.1J1,on,.pre_ve1J!ic;>Jb!?!
0
gpn:upJi.91!1V'"~~l.~"-:P-e, cde.fl!,l!Je,(j_,ril:!t~1,C"o_u,rta!s.otfl.~
~!?!15..P.\e,rtlf~ ,gf 1 ~l).e.J\!?taJ~tec~mt h~n9~ 1zi~,.ju,dg!!J~IJ~
S.1:19.~lq (pr,oJe~cJJ.~JlP.;P!P!'\9~,~)!!le.: P.c;>.!if y 1!.i.IJIS. :--0.!
P,~ ~\S,~!11_e!}t, (le,S.' · !tS. fl.0_4 ! ~ cS ~lt.!<e.., ~!1e. f~!!h.J9t<;~11Jffi~!',
~~J!,jn.<;o.!lJ!si\[~~ lu~~IJ1e,!!\R~Se~!~"19e,,siia!! re.,~!lop!s
i= t.h!!. C911!,ll!c;>fl m~.IJ J! sl_lqµl!f i:~!l~cJJhe,,p1:1!? I \g <! !:l!J~rre,~c.~
c;>f, t_h_e :~r.i'!! ~.~, TJ1~ c;qurt !};a~ !1!1!5-•) a . .,~ I! ty, !C?. ·.P.~o~~.C::! ;~ti.<!
promo~~ P!J~llc1 ! nte~e~J-~ u~t~l!ilc;I, ,l,IP, PL\l?l.ic:: c;:_o_nJi~!trtC::~
i,p.:~fflca,cy -et\n!te1,qt!."!Wf10Ml~P.l.ac;:,~,d\sy_OJP.~!!1Y~··9[\
l!OV'_Cl!fil!lt~~l)~-!1\engy, Wil!J~ei:i<! 1~ Wr9!'19 ·,§!g~J J?,; ~!1~
Fi PllJ?li«; 9l"!LIJ9JO,Offi,~O ~U~Pll.<?t ~h~J!l~tjt\,IJiO!)~ljQ!egr~,ty,,_
~ftei:;,ting rilt_e~~r.e.~JbiU!Y(.of
..,,jts.ic'{~r.dlc~; .T!°)!.!~•s'!Y.~i!ll~
aY{C!r~ing ~!lt;i!EJJI~~. ir~tc_as_eJ .ll!)qeJ ,tf!~ .PS;A,c!tJ!1!3..;!;l?,L\ '1.
shou_ld b!3!![ ill .Jl!i.n}iJ.tl_e,e/(pe9ta~!1?,n~c;>tt!l~. pepp!!3~~ Its.
G
p;irarp~µ_Qt ~L\ty.i ~93' PillV,ell~j ~()r_rup_~ipf! 1 i.tl, ,S,l?,~L~ty1~Y.
providing prompt conviction and stern sente_r.c;:.~··Ce~r.a,
21) [589-8-FJ
'.
huo:> cdt ,lssqq~; crt:i_gn~:::u~m-~iG
1.3 Appellant was the sub-inspector of police
erifrusted'with'tlfe-task' of 1aw·eii'forcement:'The 'keeper
H
SHANTI LAL MEENA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, CBI 581
had become the poacher. In such circumstances, there A
is no reason to interfere with the punishment awarded
by the trial court and was upheld in appeal. [Para 22]
[589-F-G]
Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of
Maharashtra 2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 475: 2000 (8)
SCC 571; Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v.
state ofW.B. 1994(1) SCR 37: 1994(2) sec 220;
Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed and
another v.
State of Gujarat 2009 (8)
SCR 719: 2009 (7) SCC 254; State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Bablu 2014 (9) SCC 281; State of
Punjab v. Bawa Singh 2015 (1) SCR 709; Mahesh
slo Ram Narain and others v. State of Madhya
Pradesh 1987 (2) SCR 710:1987 (3) SCC 80;
Ravi alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan
1995
(6)
Suppl.
SCR 195: 1996
(2)
SCC 175; ShExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.