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

PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S.R. RANGADAMAPPA

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/10/1982

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1982 AIR 1492            1983 SCR  (1) 496  1982 SCC  (3) 223        1982 SCALE  (1)842

ACT:      Interpretation-Satute  prescribed  minimum  sentence-No discretion given  to court-Court, if can reduce the sentence to less than the minimum prescribed ’

HEADNOTE:      Where the  statute prescribes minimum sentence and does not provide  for any  exceptions or  vest the Court with any discretion to  award a sentence below the prescribed minimum under any  special circumstances,  a Court cannot reduce the sentence to less than the minimum permissible. [497 D-E]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 432 of 1981.      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. Rao 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  the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act on  the allegation  that he was found in possession of a quantity of  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 Judicial First Class Magistrate convicted him and sentenced . him 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 appeal preferred by  the respondent,  the Sessions Judge, Anantapur con firmed  the  conviction  and  sentence.  The  respondent preferred a  revision petition  before the  High Court.  The learned Single  Judge who  heard the  revision confirmed the conviction. But, on the question of sentence, he observed: 497           "Mr. T.  Ramulu, appearing  for the petitioner who      has A  filed this  revision through jail, has submitted      that the  petitioner is  aged 30  years and  is a first      offender and  he has already served a sentence of about

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

    IN months  and that  the sentence  may be appropriately      modified. It  is true that under the A.P. Excise Act, a      statutory minimum  sentence is  prescribed. But  having      regard to  the  submissions  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.  5O/-, imposed  is set  aside. The  revision  is      dismissed subject to the modification as stated above."      We are  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  the prescribed minimum  under  any  special  circumstances.  The learned judge  has himself noticed that the sentence imposed is the  statutory minimum.  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 was 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 dismissed with the above observations. P.B.R.                                   Petition dismissed. 498