HARBANS SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB
- Citation
- 1984 INSC 129
- Decided
- 25 July 1984
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- D A DESAI
Holding
A reduction of sentence below the statutory minimum under Section 5(2) is invalid unless the court records specific written "special reasons", which the High Court failed to do.
Summary
Harbans Singh was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the trial court imposed a sentence exceeding the statutory minimum. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, exercising its discretion under Section 5(2), reduced the sentence to the period already served, citing reasons it deemed sufficient. The petitioner challenged this reduction by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had not recorded any "special reasons" in writing as required by the statute. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Meet Singh v. State of Punjab, which clarified that "special reasons" must be specific, written justifications beyond mere sympathy. It held that the High Court's rationale—essentially misplaced sympathy—did not satisfy the statutory requirement and was therefore impermissible. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, indicating that the dismissal should not be read as an affirmation of the High Court's order.
Issues considered
- Whether a court may reduce a sentence imposed under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to the period already undergone without recording written "special reasons".
- What constitutes "special reasons" for granting a sentence below the statutory minimum under Section 5(2).
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
A 214
HARBANS SINGH
v.
B ' STATE OF PUNJAB
July 25, 1984
[D.A. DESAI AND A. VARADARAIAN, JJ.J
' '
c The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 9 Section 5 (2).
Court to record in writing 'special reasons' when awarding less than the
minilnum sentence-High Court reducing sentenC'e irnposed by trial court to
ser1tence already undergone-Whether valid and legal.
Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 prescribes a
D minimum sentence and discretion is conferred on the Court to give less than
the minimnm 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 Pun/ab, [1980] 2 S.C.R 1152. [109B]
In the instant case 1 the High Court for reasons·:utter\} untenable inter-
E fered with the sentence imposed by the trial court and reduced it to the sen-
teni;e already undergone. It erred in sho\Ying a misplaced sympathy unsustain-
able in law. [214H; 215A)
CRIMINAL APPEALLATB JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 1481 of 1984.
F From the Judgment and Order dated the 23rd January, 1984
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cr!. Appeal No. 45 of
1983.
Harbans Lal and Balmokand Goyal for the Petitioner.
G The Order of the Court was delivered by
DrsAI, 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
H High Court ,who for reasons utterly untenable interfered with teh
tiARBAN} SlNGl(v. l' J .~JAB :coisai, i.) 21.5
scm'til\:e imposed by the trial court and reduced it to sentence
already undergone which in the facts and circumstanc'es of the
case was wholly impermissible.
In Meet Singil v. State of Punjab,( 1 \ this Court pointed out
that Sec.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act prescribes a
B
minimum sentence and discretion is conferred on the court to give
less than the minimum for any specia l 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 reaso ns which
weighed with the learned Judge in reducing the sentence to the
sentence undergone could not be special reasons. .Therefore, G
in our view, the learned Judge was entirely in errnr in sho-
wing a misplaced sympathy unsustainable in law. With these obser-
vations wo:: reject the special leave p ~tition .
D
N.V.K. Petition dismissed.
(I) [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1152
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.