A.S.Subramanian v. State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption Kancheepuram
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1717. For the reasons stated above, this Court holds that theprosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that theaccused demanded the bribe amount and accepted it. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
- Para 2121. Section 433(d) of Cr.P.C reads as follows: "433. Power to commute sentence:- Theappropriate Government may, without the consent ofthe person sentenced, commute:-(a)..................(b)..................(c)...................(d) a sentence of simple imprisonment, for fine. Commutation of simple imprisonment under Section433(d), Cr.P.Code:- When High Court imposed sentenceof six months' simple…
- Para 2525. In the result, the conviction of the accused is confirmedand the period of imprisonment is also confirmed. But therigorous imprisonment is converted as simple imprisonment. Onlywith the above modification, the appeal is dismissed. ksr Sd/- Assistant Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Assistant Registrar…
Judgment
by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferredthis appeal.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that P.W.2,Neelamegam was the Deputy Manager of "Futura Polymers Ltd.," atNo.1-A, Kamarajar Salai, Chinnasekadu, Madras-68, P.W.4,Ramakrishnan was the General Manager of the Company and P.W.5 wasthe Managing Director of the said company. The company is withinthe jurisdiction of Chinnasekadu Town Panchayat. The company hadapplied for issuance of dangerous and offensive trade license. Ex.P.29 is the application. Ex.P.2 is the covering letter. Thefirst accused/appellant herein called for certain documentsthrough letters dated 13.12.1994, 20.03.1995, 28.06.1995,26.09.1995 and 05.10.1995, Exs.P.4 to P.8 and the company alsoreplied to those letters. Ex.P.10 is the reply dated 30.01.1995given by P.W.
In the letter dated 13.05.1995, a cheque forRs.33,890/- was also sent to the Panchayat Union as informedthrough letter Ex.P.7 by the first accused. As no receipt wasreceived for the payment through cheque till 01.11.1995, P.W.2went to the Office of the first accused on 30.10.1995 and enquiredhim about the license. At that time, the second accused was alsopresent by the side of the first accused. Then the first accusedsaying that he had to issue the license, demanded a sum ofRs.10,000/- as bribe. He also directed P.W.2 to meet him on17.05.1995. P.W.2 has not informed this to anyone in the company. On 27.05.1995 P.W.2 again received the telephone call from thefirst accused and as such, he went and met the first accused atabout 4.00p.m., in his office. The second accused was also withhim. The first accused questioned P.W.2 as to why he did not comewith the amount on 17.05.1995. Then P.W.2 replied that thecompany was not in the habit of giving bribe and as the accusedwas insisting him, he would inform the matter to the companyManager and also informed the accused that he would meet him on31.12.1995. P.W.2 also informed this matter to P.W.4 and P.W.5,but P.W.2 was asked to meet the first accused and to insist forthe license without paying the bribe amount. On 31.10.1995, P.W.2went and met the first accused and informed that the company wasnot in a position to pay the bribe amount. Then the first accusedtold him that on the next day at about 2.00p.m, he would visit hisoffice and also would bring the receipt for the payment which hasalready been made. P.W.2 also told him that, if bribe amount isnot paid to him, he would delay the issuance of license andtherefore asked him to keep ready the amount, in turn P.W.2informed this to P.W.4 and P.W.
P.W.2 was instructed to give acomplaint to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cell. P.W.2 wasalso allowed to draw the money of Rs.10,000/- from the accountsdepartment. P.W.2 went to the Vigilance office at about 5.15p.m https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and handed over the written complaint Ex.P.15 to the DeputySuperintendent Police. On the direction of the DeputySuperintendent of Police, P.W.11, Inspector of Police received thecomplaint and registered the case in Crime No.1 of 1995 andprepared the First Information Report Ex.P.38. P.W.2 wasinstructed to come on the next day at 9.30a.m. P.W.11 alsoarranged for the mahazar witness. On 01.11.1998 at about 9.30a.m.P.W.2, P.W.3 Kandan and another Lakshmanan all appeared before the Vigilance officer. P.W.2 was introduced to the witnesses and theywere explained about the phenolphthalein test. P.W.2 wasinstructed to pay M.O.1 series currency notes only on demand bythe accused.
He was also informed to give a signal by mopping hisface with the hand-kerchief. An entrustment mahazar mentioningall the details was prepared under Ex.P.16. Then the trap layingparty proceeded from the Vigilance office and reached the companyoffice at about 12.45p.m. .Ws.2 and 3, the accompanying witnesseswent inside the company's office. P.W.2 instructed P.W.3 to sitin the chair in front of the computer which was in the oppositedirection to the seat of the accused. At about 1.30p.m. both theaccused 1 and 2, entered into the office of P.W.2. They were alsoholding the file and bill book. The first accused asked P.W.2whether the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- is ready. P.W.2 maderequest to reduce the amount from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.8,000/-, butthe first accused refused. P.W.2 requested him to give thereceipt for the payment which has been already made and theaccused particularly asked whether the amount was ready.
Thefirst accused directed the second accused to give the receipt. Ex.P.17 series are the receipts given to P.W.2 and theacknowledgment was also received. Then P.W.2 enquired about thelicense. He also handed over the amount M.O.1 currency notes tothe first accused. The first accused after counting the money, kept it under the file which he had brought. P.W.2 came out ofthe office and gave the pre-arranged signal by mopping his face.P.W.11 rushed into the office and the accused were identified byP.W.2. Sodium carbonate solution was prepared and the firstaccused was asked to dip his fingers in the two glass tumblers andthe solution in which the right hand was dipped turned into morepink colour and the solution in which the left hand was dippedturned into pink colour slightly. Then the first accused wasasked to handed over the money and he took the money from the fileand hand over to P.W.2 Inspector.
The numbers in the currencynotes were compared. Then P.W.11 followed the formalities andseized the articles and other documents. Then he prepared therecovery mahazar Ex.P.42, and also arrested the accused at about3.00p.m. P.W.12, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and anticorruption took up the investigation on 10.11.1995 and examinedthe witnesses. In the month of September, as he was transferred https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from the post, the investigation and the investigation wascontinued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W.13 and fromP.W.1 sanctioning authority obtained sanction order Ex.P.1 and oncompleting the investigation he laid the final report on06.03.1998.3. The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses, marked 48exhibits and produced 3 material objects.4. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.Cwith regard to the incriminating circumstances available againstthem, they denied their complicity.
The accused have not chosen toexamine any defence witness. During the cross examination, thedefence side has marked Exs.D1 to D.4. The first accused hadstated in his evidence that he had sent notice to the company forthe unauthorised construction and he also recommended the proposalto the M.M.D.A for the demolition of construction and he wasdelegated the powers for demolition. As there was a motive, thecase has been foisted against him. The second accused has statedthat he used to accompany the officers and collect the taxes andonly in that manner, he had accompanied the first accused. 5. Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant/firstaccused submitted that the case of the defence is that the accusednever demanded money and he had not received any money from P.W.2;and it was only P.W.2 who had planted the money in the filewithout the knowledge of the accused. The documents marked by theaccused Ex.D1 to D.4 would clearly establish that the company hadthe motive and had all the grudge against the accused and as suchthey have conspired and implicated the accused falsely.
Thelearned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there wasno reason for the accused to demand money, since already theprocess had been completed and issuance of license was not in thehands of the accused and Exs.P.33, P.34, P.35, P.44 and P.45 wouldshow that on 19.10.1995 itself the accused informed M.M.D.A andalso requested them to accord approval and it was also intimatedduly to the Manager of the company. If the demand for the paymentbefore 18.10.1995 is true, the accused would not have sent letteron 19.05.1995 and as such his subsequent demand on 27.10.1995 and30.05.1995 is also false. The learned counsel for the appellantfurther submitted that when there is a strong motive for thecompany as per Exs.D.1 to D.4 against the accused, the version ofthe accused that money was planted by P.W.2 in the file withoutthe knowledge of the accused should be accepted. The learnedcounsel for the appellant also relied on the answer given by P.W.3mahazar witness who had stated that after P.W.11 and P.W.10 wentinto the room, the accused was asked to take the money and handedover to the Inspector and thereafter only the accused was asked https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to dip his fingers in the Sodium Carbonate solution; andvehemently contended that that the phenolphthalein test thoughproved positive, does not help the prosecution case. On the otherhand, the answer given by P.W.3 strengthen the version of theaccused that the money was planted. He further submitted thatthe accused need not prove his case beyond doubt, but if anexplanation given which is acceptable on probabilities, then itshould not be rejected.
The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on thedecision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2006(1) SCC(Crl.) 401 (T.Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu), observed inpara-12 and 16 as follows: "12............................ If the reasonfor receiving the amount is explained and theexplanation is probable and reasonable, then theappellant had to be acquitted,......................""16. The High Court did not consider theexplanation offered by the appellant for the receiptof the money nor the previous enmity harboured byP.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 towards th appellant. Nor didit hold that the decision of the trial court waserroneous or perverse. "
Mr.N.Kumanan, learned Government Advocate submitted thatit is a specific case of P.W.2 that the company was not in thehabit of giving bribe and even in the documents filed by theaccused in Ex.D.4, the company had already made the allegationabout the demand of bribe by accused. Though the accused had sentletters on 19.10.1995, he had not issued receipts for the paymentmade through cheque and P.W.2 also stated that the accusedthreatened him by saying the process of issuing license should bedelayed and it is also mentioned in Ex.P.15 complaint, that if theaccused not paid, he would spoil the whole issue.
The learned Government Advocate further submitted thatthere is no reason for the accused officially to visit the officeof P.W.2 but it was only for the purpose of receiving the bribeamount. The version of the accused that the accused was invitedto the office to explain to the Managing Director about the delayin giving license is highly improbable. The learned GovernmentAdvocate further submitted that the evidence of P.W.3 that theaccused was asked to take the currency notes and handed over it tothe police officer even prior to conducting of the phenolphthaleintest is not correct and the evidence of P.W.11 and as per the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ evidence of P.W.11 and as per the recovery mahazar in which P.W.3also signed, the money was handed over by the accused to thepolice officer only after phenolphthalein test was conducted.
The learned counsel for the appellant by abundant caution, made submission that the accused is aged about 70 years and hadheart surgery and in the event of confirming conviction prayedthat the rigorous imprisonment may be converted as simpleimprisonment thereby enabling the accused to approach the StateGovernment under Sub clause(d) of Section 433 Cr.P.C forcommutation of imprisonment to a fine. He further submitted thatthe accused is prepared to pay any additional fine and sought fora recommendation from this Court to the State Government. Thelearned counsel also submitted that there are some precedents andplaced reliance on the decision of this Honourable High Courtreported in 2007 L.W. (Crl.) 123 (S.P.Meriappan v. State of TamilNadu) and also the unreported judgment of this Court in Crl.A.No.545 of 1999 dated 26.06.2007.
The learned Government Advocate submitted that anaccused under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be releasedunder the Probation of Offenders Act and as such, the personconvicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act does not deservefor any recommendation for remission or commutation of sentence. The learned Government Advocate also produced the copy of the Government Orders wherein the prisoners were released onpremature. Even as per those orders, the prisoners sentencedunder the Prevention of Corruption Act were not considered forpremature release. He relied on G.O.Ms.No.1762, Home(Prisons.VI)Department dated 20.07.1987 and G.O.Ms.No.164 Home (Prisons IV)Department, dated 02.02.1996.
This Court considered the submissions made by bothparties, the evidence of witnesses and other records.
This Court considered the submission made by both partiesand perused the evidence of witnesses and other records. According to P.W.2 decoy witness, a demand for a sum ofRs.10,000/- as bribe was made by the first accused on 13.10.1995,27.10.1995 and 31.10.1995. Though it is contended by the defencethat there is no corroboration for the earlier demand made by theaccused and there was no necessity for the accused to demand theamount as already necessary formalities as far as the firstaccused is concerned have been carried out; it is a specific caseof P.W.2 that if the amount is not paid, the issuance of licensewould be delayed. In Ex.P.15 complaint given by P.W.2, it is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mentioned that the accused reiterated his demand for Rs.10,000/-and when P.W.2 requested him to give up the demand, first accusedrefused to give up the demand, and stood firm that it should bepaid to him on 01.11.1995 at about 2.00p.m., positively or elsehe would spoil the whole issue. P.W.2 also mentioned in Ex.P.15that it is not known whether the accused himself would issue thelicense or simply forwarded the same to the authorities. Thoughit is the case of the accused that on 19.10.1995 itself theaccused had forwarded the letter to the authorities for givingapproval for the proposal sent by the company; in Ex.P.44, theletter forwarded to the Manager of the company, it is not clearlymentioned that a letter has been forwarded by the accused to theauthorities for approval and for no objection. At the end ofletter, it is mentioned as follows: "Once again we will call in short time with yourproposal forwarded recommended, to concern authoritieson request to accord installation and running licenceas early as possible. "It appears from this that the accused wanted the companyauthorities to meet again. Therefore, it cannot be said that theaccused was not having any more connection with the proposal.
It is the case of the defence that the accused has beenresponsible for levying the property tax of Rs.6 lakhs for IndianOrganic Chemicals Company of which the complainant company was apart of it. From Rs.1 lakh to Rs.6 lakhs it was increased andfurther the complainants company had commenced the constructioneven before getting license and the accused had taken steps forthe demolition of the construction and further the license fee ofRs.2050/- for the Indian Organic Chemicals Limited was raised toRs.2 lakhs and writ petitions were filed by the Indian OrganicChemicals Limited against the Executive Officer of the Panchayatwhich are marked in the documents as Exs.D.1 to D.4. The IndianOrganic Chemicals Limited was having dispute with the ChinnakaduPanchayat. In fact on 14.02.1995, the tax in respect of thebuildings have been enhanced and the communication has been sentby the accused to the Indian Organic Chemicals Limited.W.P.No.574 of 1995 was filed praying for interim injunctionrestraining the Panchayat from taking action on the notice dated14.02.1995. W.P.No.10378 of 1995 has also been filed seekingdirection to the Executive Officer, Chinnasekadu to forward thedrawings and plans submitted by the company to MMDA. The efforttaken by the defence to show that the company was very muchaffected by the Executive Officer of the Chinnasekadu Panchayat isappreciable, whereas at the same time, in the affidavit filed inW.P.No.10378 of 1995, in paragraph 10, it is mentioned that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Executive Officer of Panchayat Union, was making very manyunlawful demands. In such circumstances, though there has been afriction between the company and the Executive Officer, the demandfor the bribe amount by the accused cannot be ruled out.
On the date of trap, it was only the accused who hadvisited the office of P.W.2. If the accused had been knowingalready about the allegation made against him in writ petitionwhich was filed in the month of August, 1995, he would havestrongly objected to him and he would not have visited the officeof P.W.2. The present explanation of the appellant/first accusedthat only in order to explain about the delay in granting licenseto the authorities of the company, is highly improbable. It wasthe duty of P.W.4 to convey the message to his superiors. ThisCourt feels that the explanation by the first accused for going tothe office of P.W.2 is unacceptable.
The first accused had denied about the receipt of theamount itself. Even in a case of denial of the receipt ofamount by the accused, if the prosecution establishes byevidence the fact of payment of amount and accused receiving it, then the presumption under Section 20 of the Act should be drawn. Only if the accused accepts about the receipt of the amount, butrebuts the presumption by his explanation for receipt of theamount, then the court has to see whether the explanation given byaccused is probable and acceptable. This is a case wherein theaccused had stated that the money was planted in the file. Theversion of the accused that the money planted in the file is notsupported by any material. On the other hand, the case of theprosecution that money was given to the accused and it wasreceived by accused. Therefore Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act comes into effect and the presumption is to bedrawn.
The only flaw that appears in the prosecution case is theevidence of P.W.3 that the accused was asked to take the currencynotes even before the phenolphthalein test was conducted. In viewof the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.11 and recovery mahazar Ex.P.24that part of evidence by P.W.3 does not seem to be correct. Suchevidence was given by P.W.3 only in a negligent manner. In thereexamination, his attention has not been drawn to the recoverymahazar. Still P.W.3 who is an independant witness had clearlyspoken about P.W.2 handing over the bribe amount to the firstaccused and the first accused receiving it and keeping underneaththe file.
For the reasons stated above, this Court holds that theprosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that theaccused demanded the bribe amount and accepted it. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
With regard to the sentence, the accused is alreadysentenced only to a minimum period of one year imprisonment. With regard to the request made by the learned counsel for theappellant, to convert the rigorous imprisonment to simpleimprisonment and for a direction to the State Government to invokeSection 433 (b) of Cr.P.C, this Court is reluctant to make suchrecommendation in this case.
In the decision reported in 2007-1- L.W.(Crl.) 123(S.P.Meiappan v. State of Tamil Nadu), it has been held asfollows: "15. However, Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned SeniorCounsel would submit that the accused has paid theentire amount as admitted by the prosecution and thusthere is no loss to the Bank. The Bank has not lodgedany complaint. But on some information, the CBIitself has registered a case and prosecuted theaccused which ended in conviction. At the time ofconviction the accused was 64 years of age and now heis 72 years old and according to the learned SeniorCounsel his movements are restricted and he is notable to move freely without the assistance of hisclose relatives and would submit that if he is sent tojail he will not survive. Therefore, the learnedsenior counsel would submit the following judgments ofthe Honourable Supreme Court.16. In N.Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara reported in 1997 SCC(Cri) 608, it has beenheld as follows: "3.
The offence took place in the year1984. The appellant has been awarded sixmonths simple imprisonment and has alsobeen ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-Under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, "the appropriateGovernment" is empowered to commute thesentence of simple imprisonment for fine. We think that this would be an appropriatecase for commutation of sentence wherealmost a decade has gone by. We,therefore, direct the appellant to depositin the trial court a sum of Rs.6000/- asfine n commutation of the sentence of sixmonths simple imprisonment within a periodof six weeks from today and intimate to theappropriate Government that such fine has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalise thematter by passing appropriate orders under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.17.
In Badri Prasad v. State of M.P., reported in1996 SCC (Cri.) 79, their Lordships have taken thesimilar view, which is as follows:-"2. There is some scope, however, towards the sentence because this Courtgranted in 1989 leave and the appellant ison bail. We would rather now scale downthe sentence of six months RI to threemonths simple imprisonment, whichsustaining the fine of Rs.1000 as awardedby the courts below. Subject to thismodification in the sentence, the appealotherwise fails. This has been made toenable the appellant to approach the StateGovernment under Sub-clause (d) of Section433 for conversion of simple imprisonmentof fine. Since the adulteration was onlyby adding a colouring agent in the chilliespower and that was possibly done to pleasethe customer's eye, we recommend that the State Government release the appellant onthe charging of Rs.2000/- as fine and thatan appropriate order be passed by the StateGovernment to that effect within a periodof three months.
The appellant shalldeposit in the trial court under two headsthe fine imposed by the Court i.e.,Rs.1000/- as also the alterable fine ofRs.2000/- within a period of three weeksfrom today and apprise the State Governmentof his having discharging his obligation. On his doing so the appellant need not bearrested.18. Considering the age of the accused, the factthat he has already repaid the amount and themisappropriation was only temporary in nature and alsothe fact that the said offence took place in the year1990, I am inclined to modify the sentence. As faras conviction under Section 409 IPC and 13(1)(c) ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are concerned, the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonmentimposed for each offence is modified as one year https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ simple imprisonment under both the Sections and thefirst accused is directed to pay an additional fine ofRs.25,000/- to be deposited before the Special Courtfor CBI Cases, Coimbatore.
This is to enable theappellant/accused to approach the State Governmentunder sub-clause(d) of Section 433 Cr.P.C., forconversion of simple imprisonment to fine. Sincethere is no loss to the Bank and no complaint has beenpreferred by the Bank in this regard, I recommend thatthe State Government release the appellant or thecharging of Rs.3000/- as fine and that an appropriateorder be passed by the State Government to thateffect within a period of three months. The appellantshall deposit in the trial court under two heads thefine imposed by the Trial Court i.e., Rs.1000/- andthe additional fine of Rs.25,000/- imposed by this Court as also the alterable fine of Rs.3000/- within aperiod of three weeks from today and apprise the StateGovernment of his having discharged his obligation. On his doing so, the appellant need not undergo thesentence of imprisonment. Otherwise, he shall undergothe modified sentence as stated earlier. "
Similarly in Crl.A.No.545 of 1999 dated 26.06.2007, HisLordship Justice A.C.Arumuga Perumal Adityan, passed an order asfollows: "20. Under such circumstances, considering theage of the accused and the fact that he has alreadyrepaid the entire amount of ill gotten money and alsothe fact that the accused had undergone by-passsurgery even in the year 1990, I am inclined to modifythe sentence alone as indicated above. As far as theconviction of the trial Court is concerned the same isconfirmed, but the sentence alone is modified asfollows:-As far as the sentence under Sections 120(B) r/w420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 465 IPC is concerned thesentence of one year Rigorous Imprisonment ismodified to that of one year simple imprisonment andunder Section 420 IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, isconcerned the sentence of two years RI for eachoffence is modified to that of one year SI each. Theappellant/A1 is further directed to pay an additionalfine of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited before the Principal Sessions Court for CBI Cases, Chennai, toenable the appellant/A1 to approach the StateGovernment under Sub-section 3 of Section 432 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Cr.P.C., for conversion of simple imprisonment tofine. Since there is no loss to the bank and nocomplaint has been preferred by the bank in this case, it is further charging fine of Rs.3000/- and to passan appropriate order to that effect within a period ofthree months from this date. The appellant shalldeposit the additional fine of Rs.25,000/- imposed bythis Court and also three weeks from today andappraise the State Government to dispose of thisapplication. On doing so, the appellant need notundergo the sentence of imprisonment, otherwise heshall undergo the modified sentence as stated earlier. With this direction Crl.A.No.545 of 1999 preferred bythe appellant/A1 stands disposed of. "
Section 433(d) of Cr.P.C reads as follows: "433. Power to commute sentence:- Theappropriate Government may, without the consent ofthe person sentenced, commute:-(a)..................(b)..................(c)...................(d) a sentence of simple imprisonment, for fine. Commutation of simple imprisonment under Section433(d), Cr.P.Code:- When High Court imposed sentenceof six months' simple imprisonment and a fine ofRs.1000 for an offence under the Prevention of FoodAdulteration Act, 1954, the Supreme Court havingfound that the offence was committed long ago, i.e.,in 1984, held that if would be an appropriate casefor commutation of sentence of simple imprisonmentunder Section 433(d), Cr.P.C when almost a decade hadpassed. The Supreme Court directed the appellant todeposit in trial Court Rs.6,000/- as fine incommutation of imprisonment and to move the StateGovernment for commutation of the sentence ofimprisonment-- vide-- N. Sukumaran Nair v. FoodInspector (1997) 9 SCC 101: 1997 SCC (Cri) 608. Similarly, in another decision when adulterationconsisted of addition of colouring matter to chillipowder, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of 6months rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonmentfor three months and a fine of Rs.1000 so that theappellant could move the State Government forcommutation of sentence of simple imprisonment tofine under Section 433(d), Cr.P.Code and directed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ State Government to impose further fine of Rs.2000in lieu of sentence over and above the fine ofRs.1000 as already imposed and release the appellant-vide Badri Prasad v. State of M.P.1996 SCC(Cri)79:(1995) 4 (Supp) SCC 682."
It is true that the Honourable Supreme Court in some ofthe cases wherein the accused had been sentenced to simpleimprisonment, directed him to pay some fine amount and thenrecommended to the State Government to pass appropriate ordersunder Clause(d) of Section 433 Cr.P.C. This Honourable High Courtalso has followed the same method.
As far as this Court is concerned, it is felt that thepower to commute sentence under Section 433 Cr.P.C is purelyvested with the appropriate Government. While so, under Section433(d) for converting sentence of simple imprisonment and fine, the quantum of fine amount should be fixed only by the appropriateGovernment. Of course, the Honourable Supreme Court with theplenary power may fix the quantum and direct the appropriateGovernment to consider the case under Section 433 Cr.P.C. Thoughthe High Court also may have the inherent power, whether such arecommendation could be made after fixing the quantum of the fineamount for an accused convicted under the Prevention of CorruptionAct? Even the Probation of Offenders Act is not applicable forthe person convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Asper the copy of the Government Orders produced, G.O.Ms.No.1762,Home (Prisons VI) Department, dated 20.07.1987 and G.O.Ms.No.164Home(Prison-IV) Department dated 02.02.1996, the premature releaseof the prisoners was made applicable not for the prisonerssentenced under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Immoral Traficrules, Drugs Act and prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In thesaid circumstances, this court feels that it is not proper for the Court to recommend for commutation of sentence to a prisoner underthe Prevention of Corruption Act. At the same time, it is madeclear that it is only for the Government to decide whether tocommute the sentence on the prisoner under Section 433 Cr.P.C.,or not.
With the above observation, though this court is notfixing the amount of fine and not recommending to the Governmentto invoke Section 433 Cr.P.C, the sentence of imprisonment imposedon the accused is altered from rigorous imprisonment to simpleimprisonment. Now it is purely a matter between the accused andthe Government under Section 433 Cr.P.C. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
In the result, the conviction of the accused is confirmedand the period of imprisonment is also confirmed. But therigorous imprisonment is converted as simple imprisonment. Onlywith the above modification, the appeal is dismissed. ksr Sd/- Assistant Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Assistant Registrar To 1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chenglepet.2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Kancheepuram.3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.4. The Additional District Judge-cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu.5. The Special Judge-cum- Additional District Judge-cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu.1 cc to Mr.K.Srinivasan, Advocate, SR.41379ka (co)dv/18.8. Criminal Appeal No.1330 of 2002
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 7; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 433, 433(b), 433(d); Probation of Offenders Act; Prevention ofCorruption Act — s. 20; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 409, 420; Prevention of FoodAdulteration Act, 1954.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 31 Jul 2008. The bench was T SUDANTHIRAMCRIMINAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.