' I

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

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 anyspe'cial circumstances, a Court cannot reduce

th~. sentence to less than thc-mio'imu1:? permissible. [497 DE]

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. Ro 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 possesion' 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 confirmed 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 question 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 te 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.