A
B
c
D
E
F
H
' I
496
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
S.R. RANGADAM.APP,A
October 1, 1982
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.J
/
lflftrprttation-Statute prescribed minimum ittntence-No discretion given to
court-Court, if can reduce the sentence to /1s1 than ihe minimum prescribed-..
Where the statute prescribes minimum seriten'ce and does not provide for
any -exceptions or vest the Court with any discretion to' awiird a sentence below
the prescribed minimum under any~spe'cial circumstances, a Court cannot reduce
th~. sentence to less than thc-mio'imu1:? permissible. [497 D·E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 432of198L
From the Judgment and Order dated the 25th September, 1980
of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal
Revision Case No. 461 of 1980.,
P. Ram Reddy and G.N. R~o for the Petitioner.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY. J. The respondent was charged with an
offence under Section 34 (a) of tlie Andhra Pradesh Excise Act on
the allegation that he was 'found in posses~ion' of a quantity pf eight
litres of illicitly distilled, arrack, an intoxicant, in contravention of the
provisions of the Act and the Rules, made under the Act. , The
learned fodical First Class Magistrate convicted him and sentenced
hitn to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years,
which was the minimum sentence that could be awarded for an
offence under Section ·34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act On an )IPPeal
preferred by the respondent, ,the Sessions Judge, Anantapur con-
firmed the conviction and sentence. The re8pondent preferred a
revision petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge
who heard the revision confirmed the conviction,
But, on the ques-
tion of s¢ntence, he observed :
•
/
·•
A.P. STATE I'. 's.R .. RANOAbAMAPPA (Chinnappa Reddy, J.)
497
"Mr. T. Ramulu, appearing for the petitioner who has
filed this revision through jail, has submitted that the.
petitioner 1s aged 30 Years and is a first offender aµd he
has already served a sentence of about 10 months and
that the .· senten.ce may be appropriately modified. It
• 1 is true that .under the A. P. Exci.se Act, a stat.utory minimum
' sentence is prescribed. But having regard to the submis-
. sions · made above, ' I feel ·the
interest· ·of justice. will
be satisfied if the ··sentence
of imprisonment imposed·.
against the petitioner ,is reduced to the period already
undergone and if the fine of Rs. 50/ ·, imposed is set .aside. ·
.
'
-
The revision is dismissed subject to the modification as
stated above."
We ar( unable to understand why the High Court reduced
the sentence. The statute prescribes a . minimum sentence. ·It
does not provide for any exceptions and does not vest the Court
with any discretion · to award a sentence below
t~e prescribed
minimum under any special circumstances. The learned judge has
himself noticed that the sentence imposed is\the statutory mh1imutn.
' Having noticed that the statute prescribes a \minimum sentence for
the offence, the •High Court · has ununderstably
reduced the
sentence of imprisonment to less than the minimum permissible.
The High Court wzs clearly in error in doing so.
We· think •we
have said.enough to correct.the error. It is unnecessary .to pursue
the matter further by granting special leave; ·The petition is dis·
missed with the above observations.
P.B.R.
Petition dismissed.
A
B
c
D
E
F
Lex