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

PETITIONER: RAMASHRAYA CHAKRAVARTI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/11/1975

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. UNTWALIA, N.L.

CITATION:  1976 AIR  392            1976 SCR  (2) 703  1976 SCC  (1) 281

ACT:      Sentence-Factors  to   be  considered   in  determining sentence-I.P.C. Section 409 and 467.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant  was a  Circle organizer  in  the  Tribal Welfare Department.  He was  entrusted with the distribution of stipends  to  adivasi  students  of  the  Tribal  Welfare Department School.  He misappropriated  a sum  of Rs. 500/-. meant for  4 students and also forged certain entries in the bills. He was convicted under section 409 and section 467 of I.P.C. by  the Sessions  Judge and  ‘ sentenced  to 4  years rigorous imprisonment  and a  fine of  Rs. 500/-.  The  High Court on  appeal maintained  the conviction  but reduced the sentence to  2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-.      on an  appeal by  Special leave  limited  only  to  the question of sentence. ^      HELD: 1.  To adjust the duration of imprisonment to the gravity of  a particular offence is not always an easy task. It is  always a matter of judicial discretion subject to any mandatory minimum prescribed by law. In judging the adequacy of a  sentence, the nature of the offence, the circumstances of its  commission, the  age and  character of the offender, injury  to   individuals  or   to  Society,  effect  of  the punishment on the offender, eye to correction or reformation of the  offender, are  some amongst many other factors which would be  ordinarily taken  into  consideration  by  courts. [713GH, 714-FG]      2. Trial  Courts in  this country already over-burdened with work  have hardly  any time to set apart for sentencing reflection. In  a good  system of administration of criminal justice  pre-sentence   investigation  may   be   of   great sociological value.  Throughout the world humanitarianism is permeating into  penology and  the courts  are  expected  to discharge their appropriate roles. [714 GH]      3. Without  minimising the  seriousness of the offence, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the sentence was reduced from 2 years to one year [715-C]

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

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 154 of 1975.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated the  18th February  1975 of  the Madhya  Pradesh  High Court at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 1972.      Sarju Prasad and S. N. Prasad for the Appellant.      Ram Panjwani, Dy. Advocate General, M.P., H. S. Parihar and I. N. Shroff for the Respondent.       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      GOSWAMI, J.-To  adjust the  duration of imprisonment to the gravity  of a  particular offence  is not always an easy task. Sentencing  involves an  element of guessing but often settles down  to practice  obtaining in  a particular  court with inevitable  differences arising  in the  context of the times and  events in  the light of social imperatives. It is always a 714 matter of  judicial  discretion  subject  to  any  mandatory minimum prescribed by law.      Hegel in  his ’Philosophy  of Right’  pithily  put  the difficulty as follows:-           "Reason cannot  determine,  nor  can  the  concept      provide any  principle whose  application could  decide      whether justice  requires for an offence (i) a corporal      punishment of  forty lashes  or thirty-nine,  or (ii) a      fine of  five dollars  or  four  dollars  ninety-three,      four, etc.,  cents, or  (iii) imprisonment of a year or      three hundred  and sixty-four,  three, etc., days, or a      year and  one, two, or three days. And yet injustice is      done at  once if  there is  one lash  too many,  or one      dollar or  one cent, one week in prison or one day, too      many or too few".      The present  appeal by  special leave  being limited to sentence we  are to  consider about  the appropriate deserts for the appellant in this case.      The appellant  was a  Circle organizer  in  the  Tribal Welfare Department  at Lohandiguda  in the  State of  Madhya Pradesh. He  was entrusted with the distribution of stipends to Adivasi students of the Tribal Welfare Department School. He misappropriated  a  sum  of  Rs.  500/-  meant  for  four students and  also forged  certain entries  in the bills. He was convicted  under section  409 and section 467 IPC by the Sessions Judge  and sentenced for each head of charge to con current four years’ rigorous imprisonment and also to a fine of Rs.  500/-, in  default to  rigorous imprisonment for six months. The  High Court  on appeal maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to two years’ rigorous imprisonment maintaining the fine.      From a  perusal of the judgment of the High Court which is the  only document  in the  paper book in addition to the special leave  petition, it  is not  very  clear  about  the offence of  forgery committee  by  the  accused.  We  would, however, say nothing more than that.      In judging the adequacy of a sentence the nature of the offence, the.  circumstances of  its commission, the age and character of  the offender,  injury  to  individuals  or  to society, effect  of the  punishment on  the offender, eye to correction and reformation of the offender, are some amongst many other  factors which  would be  ordinarily  taken  into consideration  by  courts.  Trial  courts  in  this  country already over-burdened  with work have hardly any time to set apart for  sentencing reflection.  This aspect  is missed or deliberately ignored  by accused  lest a  possible plea  for

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

reduction of  sentence may  be considered  as weakening  his defence. In  a good  system of  administration  of  criminal justice  pre-sentence   investigation  may   be   of   great sociological value. Through out the world humanitarianism is permeating into  penology and  the courts  are  expected  to discharge their appropriate roles. 715      The appellant is a youngman of about 30 years. He is an educated  person who was employed in Government service. But for the  forgery he  could have been tried in the court of a first class Magistrate for the offence under section 409 IPC and in  that case the maximum sentence of imprisonment would have been  two years’  rigorous imprisonment  on the face of the High Court’s judgment, as noticed above, the part played by the  appellant in the forgery is rather a little obscure. The appellant  is sure  to lose  his  employment  under  the Government. There  is already  indignity heaped  upon him on account of conviction. He has the opportunity to commit such offence as  a Government servant in the future. Any sentence of imprisonment  imposed upon  him will  be a  deterrent  to others similarly  disposed in  such unlawful  pursuits.  The appellant was  refused bail  in this Court and he is said to have served about nine months in prison.      While  we  do  not  minimise  the  seriousness  of  the offences,  having  regard  to  the  circumstances  mentioned above, we  are of  opinion that  it will  meet the  ends  of justice in  this case  if we  order, which  we do,  that the appellant’s sentence  be  reduced  to  one  year’s  rigorous imprisonment only and in addition to a fine of Rs. 500 only, in default  rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appeal is partly  allowed with  modification  of  the  sentence  as ordered. P.H.P.                                Appeal partly allowed. 716