STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR versus VINAY NANDA

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 399 · Decided: 16-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-. 
ST A TE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 
A 
"" 
v. 
VINAYNANDA 
JANUARY 16, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
...,, 
/' 
Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006: 
· Section 5(2) proviso-Minimum sentence-Imposition of - Criteria to 
award-Held: Where there are mitigating circumstances minimum sentence c 
may be awarded for 'special reasons'-'Special reasons' have to be 
.... 
·distinguished from 'good' or other reasons'-Reaching superannuation is 
not a 'special reason '-Similarly, prolonged litigation is not a 'special 
reason '-Hence, under these circumstances minimum sentence may not be 
awarded. 
D 
Jammu & Kashmir Probation of Offenders Act, 1966: 
-,.. 
Section 18-Benefit of probation-Applicability of -Accused convicted 
under S.5(2) of the J & K Prevention of Corruption Act and awarded 
imprifonment for one year and fine of Rs. 16,000--High Court gave the 
accused benefit of J & K Probation of Offenders Act-Correctness of-Held E 
: i & K Probation of offenders Act is not applicable to offences under the 
J & K Prevention of Corruption Act-Hence, High Court erred in giving the 
benefit of J & K Probation of Offenders Act to the accused 
~ 
Words and Phrases: 
F 
"Special reasons"-Meaning of-:-ln the context of Section 5(2) of the 
Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act. Svt. 2006. 
The respondent-accused was convicted under Section S(1)(c) cifthe 
Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt 2006 and sentenced G 
~ to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 16,000. 
On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction but gave the respondent the 
benefit . under the Jam mu & Kashmir Probation of Offenders Act, 1966. 
Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the accused it was contended that as there existed H 
399 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(200 I] I S.C.R. 
A special circumstances the accused be not sent fo jail; and that since the 
accused had reached superannuation the minimum sentence in terms of the 
proviso to Section 5(2) of the J & K Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 
be awarded to him. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In view of the unambiguous and categorical provisions of 
Section 18 of the Jammu & Kashmir Probation of Offenders Act, 1966, it 
must be held that the High Court was not justified in giving the respondent 
the benefit of the Jam mu & Kashmir Probation of Offenders Act, 1966 as 
C the said Act was not applicable to offences under the Jammu & Kashmir 
Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006. (404-A; 404-81 
D 
E 
2.1. Where the mandate of law is clear and unambiguous, the court 
has no option but to pass the sentence upon conviction as provided under the 
statute. (405-C( 
Aditya Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., (2000) SCC (Cr. P.) 1206; 
Vidyadhar Ganesh Lanjekar v. State of Maharashtra, (1993) Cr. P. Law 
Journal 3667 and Ghulam Din Buch v. State of J & K, (1996) 9 SCC 239, 
held inapplicable. 
2.2. The mitigating circumstances in a case, if established, would 
authorise the court to pass such sentence of imprisonment or fine which may 
be deemed to be reasonable but not less than the minimum prescribed under 
an enactment. For imposing the minimum sentence the court has to record 
special reasons. 'Special reasons' have to be distinguished from 'good' or 
F 'other reasons'. The fact that the convict had reached his superannuation 
is not a special reason. Similarly, pendency of criminal case for_ over a period 
of time can also not be treated as a special reason. Prolonged litigation in 
the country is admittedly a general reason in criminal cases. None of the 
circumstances stated by the respondent in his affidavit by itself constitute 
a 'special reason'. (405-F-G-H; 406-D( 
G 
Jagjeevan Prasad v. State of MP, (2000) 8 SCC 22, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
82 of 200 I. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.05.2000 in CRLFA 29/95 of the 
STATE OF J. & K. v. VINA Y NANDA [SETI-II, J.] 
401 
High Court of J & K at Jammu. 
Jaspal Singh, Ashok Mathur, Pawan Kumar Bahl, Harish Kumar and 
M.M. Kashyap for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SETHI, J. Leave granted. 
A 
B 
Corruption at any level, by any person, of any magnitude is condemnable 
which cannot be ignored by the judicial courts, when proved. No leniency is 
required to be shown in proved cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act 
which itself treats the offences under it of a special nature to be trea

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