http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (crl.)  1303 of 2007

PETITIONER: K. RADHAI

RESPONDENT: C.B.I. COCHIN UNIT

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/09/2007

BENCH: C.K. THAKKER & ALTAMAS KABIR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (arising out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1290 OF 2007)

C.K. THAKKER, J.

1.              Leave granted. 2.              This appeal is filed against the judgment and  final order passed by the High Court of Kerala on October  12, 2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1997. By the said  appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the  appellant recorded by the Court of the Special Judge  (CBI), Ernakulam on December 27, 1996 but reduced the  sentence.

3.              The facts in nutshell are that the appellant  was employed as a Clerk in Syndicate Bank at Fort  Branch, Trivendrum. It was the case of the prosecution  that a false bank account got opened with Account No.  15799 in the said Branch and an amount of Rs.42,000/-  was fraudulently withdrawn by the accused. After  investigation, charge was framed against the accused- appellant in the Court of the Special Judge, Central  Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Ernakulam for offences  punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the  Indian Penal Code (IPC) as also under Section 13(2) read  with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,  1988. 4.              The Special Judge, after appreciating the  evidence of prosecution witnesses, held the charge  proved, convicted the appellant and ordered her to  undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for  offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468, IPC,  rigorous imprisonment for six months each under  Sections 465 and 471, IPC and rigorous imprisonment  for two years for an offence punishable under Section  13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of  Corruption Act, 1988. Fine was also imposed by the  Court. 5.              Being aggrieved by the order passed by the  trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal. The High  Court held that no illegality was committed by the trial  Court in finding the appellant-accused guilty and in  convicting her. With regard to sentence, however, the  High Court observed that on the facts and in the  circumstances of the case, liberal view was required to be  taken. The High Court, therefore, in the operative part of  the judgment, observed:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    \023Last question is regarding the  punishment. Counsel for the appellant argued  that the alleged offence was in 1993 and the  money was taken during a catastrophic  situation as mentioned in Ext.P19. It is further  submitted that her husband has deserted her,  that she has to maintain her children, that she  lost the job also because of the misconduct she  has committed and that a lenient view may be  taken. Taking into account all these  circumstances together, the sentence of  imprisonment for two years each imposed for  the offence punishable under Section 13(2)  read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of  Corruption Act and 420 IPC is reduced to an  imprisonment for one year each. No  interference is required with regard to the  imposition of fine or punishment imposed for  other offences. The sentence of imprisonment  shall run concurrently\024.

6.              The appellant approached this Court against  the order passed by the High Court. On March 9, 2007,  when the matter was called out for admission hearing, it  was submitted by the learned counsel that though the  sentence of imprisonment for two years imposed by the  trial Court for an offence punishable under Section 13(2)  read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption  Act, 1988 was reduced from two years to one year as also  sentence of imprisonment for two years for an offence  punishable under Section 420, IPC was reduced from two  years to one year, no order of reduction of sentence was  passed so far as the offence punishable under Section  468, IPC was concerned. The resultant effect was that  though the High Court had reduced substantive sentence  of the appellant-accused from two years to one year for  certain offences, sentence of two years imposed on the  appellant-accused has remained as it is in view of the  fact that for an offence punishable under Section 468,  IPC, no reduction was ordered and the sentence imposed  by the trial Court continued to remain as it was. Notice  was, therefore, issued by the Court only on question of  reduction of sentence. 7.              We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8.              On the facts and in the circumstances of the  case, in our opinion, the submission of the learned  counsel for the appellant is well founded and must be  accepted. It appears that the High Court was of the view  that an order of conviction recorded by the trial Court did  not call for interference and, hence, it confirmed the  conviction of the appellant. It, however, exercised  discretion by reducing the sentence imposed on the  appellant. Precisely, because of that the High Court  reduced the sentence from two years to one year for the  offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption  Act, 1988 as also for an offence punishable under Section  420, IPC. Since there was no mention of Section 468,  IPC, the sentence of two years imposed on the appellant  has remained as it was. 9.              On the facts and in the circumstances of the  case, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met if  conviction of the appellant-accused for an offence  punishable under Section 468, IPC is maintained but the  substantive sentence imposed on her for the said offence

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

is reduced from two years to one year. 10.             For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the  appeal deserves to be partly allowed and is accordingly  allowed to the extent that the conviction of the appellant  for an offence punishable under Section 468, IPC is  confirmed but the substantive sentence imposed by the  trial Court and confirmed by the High Court is reduced  from two years to one year. In other words, the appellant- accused who is convicted for offences punishable under  the Indian Penal Code and under the Prevention of  Corruption Act, 1988 is ordered to undergo rigorous  imprisonment for one year. The appeal is allowed to the  extent indicated above.