Special Leave Petition Crl No 405 of 1980
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and Order dated 31 10 1979 of the Punjab  Haryana High Court in Crl
Appeal No 98677
N C Talukdar Shrinath Singh and M section Dhillon for the Petitioner
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI J
While we decline to grant special leave in this case an unsavoury feature of the judgment which rather stares into our 1154 face and surfaces at regular intervals makes it obligatory to make a few observations
Petitioner was convicted for having committed offences under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to suffer RI for one year on each count and on the second count also to pay a fine of Rs 400 or in default to suffer further RI for three months by the learned Special Judge
Both the Substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently
Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No 989 of 1977 against his conviction and sentence to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
This appeal came up for final hearing before a learned single judge of the High Court on 31st October 1979
When the appeal was taken up for hearing learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in the High Court did not question either the correctness or the legality of the conviction
This is unquestionable as the High Court has observed while disposing of the appeal that no arguments on merits are advanced
The High Court then proceeded to consider adequacy or otherwise of sentence imposed on the appellant before it
The High Court then proceeded to reduce the substantive sentence of the appellant of rigorous imprisonment for one year to the sentence undergone till the date of the judgment of the High Court
While so reducing the substantive sentence the High Court noticed the following circumstances which in the opinion of the High Court were sufficient to enable it to interfere with the sentences imposed upon the present petitioner
It would be advantageous to extract the relevant observations The learned counsel for the appellant has only submitted that the appellant has already been dismissed from service that he is a family man and that his sentence may be reduced to that already undergone
In my view no useful purpose will be served by sending him again to jail to serve his unexpired period of sentence
He has already lost his job
The ends of justice will be amply met if his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone and instead sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs 400 to Rs 4000 four thousand or in default to suffer further RI for one year
I order accordingly
 The judgment of the High Court throws no light on the question as to how much sentence the appellant had undergone by the time the 1155 High Court released him on bail while admitting his appeal
But it cannot be more than a few days only
Petitioner as pointed out earlier is convicted for committing offences under Section 161 IPC and 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
Section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads as under Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine Provided that the court may for any special reasons recorded in writing impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year underlining ours The language of the proviso makes it abundantly clear that court is under an obligation to impose a minimum punishment once the conviction is recorded under Section 52 and the minimum punishment of imprisonment is for a term not less than one year
Undoubtedly the proviso confers power on the Court to award less than the minimum punishment if the Court convicting and sentencing the accused is of the opinion that for any special reasons which the court is under an obligation to record in writing sentence of imprisonment for a term less than the minimum is called for
Conceding that the quantum of sentence is in the discretion of the trial court where the Legislature stepped in and circumscribed and fettered the discretion by directing imposition of a minimum sentence the court can exercise its discretion within the limited sphere left open by legislature
The Legislature circumscribed the discretion by requiring the court to impose minimum sentence but left it open to award less than the minimum statutorily prescribed for special reasons
The reasons have to be special reasons
The words special reasons  in the context in which they are used could only mean special to the accused on whom sentence is being imposed
The court has to weigh reasons advanced in respect of each individual accused whose case is taken up for awarding sentence
The word special  has to be understood in contradistinction to word general  or ordinary 
Now what does term special  connote  Special means distinguished by some unusual quality out of the ordinary
See Words and Phrases Permanent Edition Volume 39A p 82 Webster defines special as particular peculiar different from others designed for a particular purpose occasion or person limited in range confined to a definite field of action
Thus anything which is common to a large class 1156 governed by the same statute cannot be said to be special to each of them
It would thus unquestionably appear that special reasons in the context of sentencing process must be special to the accused in the case or special to the facts and the circumstances of the case in which the sentence is being awarded
The High Court then was under an obligation to award minimum sentence unless the accused advanced special reasons ie special to him in the facts and circumstances of the case and successfully invoked the discretion vested in the Court to award less than the minimum sentence prescribed by law
The Court observes that this appellant corrupt officer whose corruption was proved to its satisfaction because the High Court declined to interfere with the conviction of the appellant for corruption and who must consequently or of necessity be dismissed from service considered his dismissal from service as a special reason
Frankly speaking the High Court honestly did not expect any corrupt officer to be retained in service
Ordinarily a corrupt official whose corruption is proved to the hilt is liable to be dismissed and therefore this aspect is not special to the appellant
Accordingly if an officer proved to be corrupt to the satisfaction of the court is liable to be dismissed it cannot influence the question of sentence
Also because it would be true of all public servants dealt with under Section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
Another special reason that appealed to the High Court is that appellant is a family man 
Possibly the High Court considered marriage and children of the appellant as special to him
An unusually large number of the Government officers from amongst those charged with corruption and convicted for the same would be married men with family unless they joined service before marriage and became corrupt very soon at the inception of the career
And ordinarily speaking a family of corrupt officer in some cases if not all benefits by the corrupt activity unless shown to the contrary which is not the case
If large number of public servants from those convicted under section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are married men with children it passes comprehension how this fact can be styled as special to the appellant influencing his sentence
It may be mentioned without fear of contradiction that the only two reasons special according to the High Court for awarding less than the minimum sentence are i appellant has lost his job and ii he is a married man with children
These two reasons would be common to ninety nine per cent of cases tried under Prevention of Corruption Act and if they can be styled as special reasons for awarding less than the 1157 minimum sentence the proviso would be rendered wholly nugatory
The Court should not be oblivious to the fact that while conferring discretion in the matter of awarding adequate sentence within limits prescribed by the statute the Legislature finding cases of misplaced sympathy in sentencing process fettered the Court s discretion by prescribing a minimum sentence and making it obligatory to record special reasons for awarding less than the minimum
If still the notice of encroachments on court s discretion is not taken time may not be far when the Legislature out of exasperation may resort to what it has done in Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act where minimum sentence is prescribed and Courts  discretion to award less in any case is wholly taken away
In this context it would be timely to recall the warning uttered by this Court in Jagdish Prasad vs West Bengal This Court said Offences under the Act being anti social crimes affecting the health and well being of our people the Legislature having regard to the trend of courts to impose in most cases only fines or where a sentence of imprisonment was passed a light sentence was awarded even in cases where a severe sentence was called for a more drastic step was taken by it in prescribing a minimum sentence and a minimum fine to be imposed even for a first offence
 In this case there was no justification much less special reasons statutorily required for awarding less than the minimum sentence
stricto sensu Court exceeded its jurisdiction while interfering with the quantum of sentence
And with this observation we dismiss the special leave petition
SR Petition dismissed


Summary:
Section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 prescribes a minimum sentence of one year in all cases of conviction under the Act with a proviso that the Court may for any special reasons recorded in writing impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year
The petitioner was convicted for having committed offences under section 161 IPC and Section 52 of POCA and was sentenced to suffer RI for one year on each count and on the second count also to pay a fine of Rs 400 or in default to suffer further RI for three months by the learned Special Judge
Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently
In appeal the High Court while maintaining the conviction reduced the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year to the sentence undergone till the date of the Judgment of the High Court and increased the fine to Rs 4000 Rupees four thousand or in default to suffer further RI for one year
The High Court while so altering the sentence took into consideration two facts namely i that the petitioner was dismissed from service and ii that he is a family man
Dismissing the special leave petition of the convict against his conviction there being no appeal by State the Court  HELD 1
The language of the proviso to Section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act makes it abundantly clear that court is under an obligation to impose a minimum punishment once the conviction is recorded under Section 52 and the minimum punishment of imprisonment is for a term not less than one year
Undoubtedly the proviso confers power on the Court to award less than the minimum punishment if the Court convicting and sentencing the accused is of the opinion that for any special reasons which the Court is under an obligation to record in writing sentence of imprisonment for a term less than the minimum is called for
Conceding that the quantum of sentence is in the discretion of the trial Court where the Legislature stepped in and circumscribed and fettered the discretion by directing imposing of a minimum sentence the court can exercise its discretion within the limited spheres left open by legislature
The Legislature circumscribed the discretion by requiring the Court to impose minimum sentence but left it open to award less than the minimum statutorily prescribed for special reasons
The reasons have to be special reasons
The words special reasons  in the context in which they are 1153 used could only mean special to the accused on whom sentence is being imposed
The Court has to weigh reasons advanced in respect of each individual accused whose case is taken up for awarding sentence
1155C G In the instant case there was no justification much less special reasons statutorily required for awarding less than the minimum sentence
Stricto sensu court exceeded its jurisdiction while interfering with the quantum of sentence
1157E Jagdish Prasad vs West Bengal 1972 2 SCR p 845  851 relied on
The word special has to be understood in contradistinction to word general or ordinary
Special means distinguished by some unusual quality out of the ordinary
Again special means particular  peculiar different from others designed for a particular purpose occasion or person limited in range confined to a definite field of action
Thus anything which is common to a large class governed by the same statute cannot be said to be special to each of them
And special reasons in the context of sentencing process must be special to the accused in the case or special to the facts and circumstances of the case in which the sentence is being awarded
1155G H 1156A 3
In the instant case the only two reasons special according to the High Court for awarding less than the minimum sentence are i appellant before it has lost his job and ii and he is a married man with children
These two reasons would be common to ninety nine percent of cases tried under Prevention of Corruption Act and if they can be styled as special reasons for awarding less than the minimum sentence the proviso would be rendered wholly nugatory
1156G H 1157A Observation The Court should not be oblivious to the fact that while conferring discretion in the matter of awarding adequate sentence within limits prescribed by the statute the Legislature finding cases of misplaced sympathy in sentencing process fettered the Court s discretion by prescribing a minimum sentence and making it obligatory to record special reasons for awarding less than the minimum
If still the notice of encroachments on court s discretion is not taken time may not be far when the Legislature out of exasperation may resort to what it has done in Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act where minimum sentence is prescribed and Court s discretion to award less in any case is wholly taken away
1157A C