http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: HARBANS SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/07/1984

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. VARADARAJAN, A. (J)

CITATION:  1984 AIR 1594            1985 SCR  (1) 214  1984 SCC  (4)   1        1984 SCALE  (2)78

ACT:      The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 9 Section 5(2).      Court to  record  in  writing  ’special  reasons’  when awarding less  than the minimum sentence-High Court reducing sentence  imposed   by  trial   court  to  sentence  already undergone-Whether valid and legal.

HEADNOTE:      Section 5  (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 prescribes a minimum sentence and discretion is conferred on the Court  to give  less than  the minimum  for any ’special reasons’ to be recorded in writing. [109B]      What constitute  ’special reasons’  for the  purpose of Section 5  (2) was  laid down  in Meet  Singh  v.  State  of Punjab, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1152. [109B]      In the instant case, the High Court for reasons utterly untenable interfered  with the sentence imposed by the trial court and  reduced it  to the sentence already undergone. It erred in  showing a misplaced sympathy unsustainable in law. [214H; 215A] ^

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1481 of 1984.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  the 23rd  January, 1984 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 45 of 1983.      Harbans Lal and Balmokand Goyal for the Petitioner.      The Order of the Court was delivered by      DESAI, J.  We are  not inclined to grant special leave, but we  make this  short speaking order in order to keep the record straight  that the  dismissal of  the  special  leave petition does  not tentamount  to affirmance of the order of the learned  Judge of the High Court who for reasons utterly untenable interfered with teh 215 sentence imposed  by the  trial  court  and  reduced  it  to sentence  already   undergone  which   in  the   facts   and circumstances of the case was wholly impermissible.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    In Meet Singh v. State of Punjab,(1) this Court pointed out that  Sec. 5(2)  of the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act prescribes a minimum sentence and discretion is conferred on the court  to give  less than  the minimum  for any  special reasons to  be recorded in writing. This Court examined what constitute special  reasons for the purpose of Sec. 5(2) and pointed out  that the reasons which weighed with the learned Judge in  reducing the  sentence to  the sentence  undergone could not  be special  reasons. Therefore,  in our view, the learned Judge  was entirely  in error in showing a misplaced sympathy unsustainable  in law.  With these  observations we reject the special leave petition. N.V.K.                                   Petition dismissed. 216