K. POUNAMMALversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1371 : 2025 INSC 1014

                         K. Pounammal
                               v.
             State Represented by Inspector of Police
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 1716 of 2011)
                                 21 August 2025
             [N.V. Anjaria* and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards the reduction of sentence awarded to the
       inspector convicted and sentenced u/ss.7 and 13(2) rw s.13(1)(d) of
       the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting
       a bribe from a factory supervisor for issuing registration certificate.

                                   Headnotes†
       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(2) read with
       13(1)(d) – Illegal gratification – Demand and acceptance by
       public servant – Reduction of sentence – Inspector of Central
       Excise convicted and sentenced u/ss.7 and 13(2) rw s.13(1)(d)
       for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹300 from a factory
       supervisor for issuing registration certificate – Reduction of
       sentence awarded to the inspector sought:
       Held: More than two decades have passed by since the incident
       took place – Inspector underwent imprisonment for 31 days –
       She is a widow, aged 75 years, staying alone, husband having
       died, belongs to scheduled caste and has been spending her life
       negotiating all hardships – Prolongation of a criminal case for
       an unreasonable period is in itself a kind of suffering, amounting
       to mental incarceration and mental agony for the person facing
       such proceedings – On facts, it is appropriate that she may not
       be made to undergo the imprisonment again – In the totality of
       the facts and circumstances, the imprisonment already undergone
       by her is treated to be adequate sentence – Conviction of the
       Inspector upheld, however, sentence awarded reduced to the actual
       undergone – Imposition of fine increased, the inspector to pay
       fine of ₹25,000/- over and above originally imposed. [Paras 8-11]
       Sentence/Sentencing – Principles guiding the sentencing
       process – Stated. [Paras 6, 6.1, 7]

* Author
1372                                                      [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


                            Case Law Cited
    M.W. Mohiuddin v. State of Maharashtra [1995] 2 SCR 864 : (1995)
    3 SCC 567; Bechaarbhai S. Prajapati v. State of Gujarat [2008] 3
    SCR 634 : (2008) 11 SCC 163; Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall v. State
    of Gujarat (2015) 15 SCC 506; B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Admn.
    [1974] 1 SCR 222 : (1974) 3 SCC 85; Dologovinda Mohanty v.
    State of Orissa (1979) 4 SCC 557; State of Maharashtra v.
    Rashid B. Mulani [2006] 1 SCR 189 : (2006) 1 SCC 407; K.P.
    Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2015] 9 SCR 483 : (2015) 15 SCC
    497 – referred to.

                              List of Acts
    Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

                           List of Keywords
    Illegal gratification; Demand and acceptance by public servant;
    Reduction of sentence; Inspector of Central Excise; Bribe;
    Factory supervisor; Registration certificate; Imprisonment for 31
    days; Widow lady; Scheduled caste; Negotiating all hardships;
    Prolongation of a criminal case; Unreasonable period; Mental
    incarceration; Mental agony; Adequate sentence; Imposition of
    fine; Principles guiding the sentencing process.

                          Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    1716 of 2011
    From the Judgment and Order dated 04.08.2010 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRLA No. 1750
    of 2003

                       Appearances for Parties
    Advs. for the Appellant:
    V Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv., M. A. Chinnasamy, C Raghavendren,
    Mrs. C Rubavathi, Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Padhmanabha Raja K R.
    Advs. for the Respondent:
    Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Ms. R.bala, Sr. Adv., Arvind
    Kumar Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Amit Sharma-b,
    Ms. Archana Surve Shinde, Ms. Sunanda Shukla.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                          1373

      K. Pounammal v. State Represented by Inspector of Police


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     N.V. Anjaria, J.

     Heard learned counsel Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy for the appellant and
     learned counsel Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria for the respondent-State.
2.   This criminal appeal by the appellant-convict is directed against
     judgment and order dated 4th August, 2010 of the Madras High Court,
     Madurai Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2003, whereby the
     High Court confirmed judgment and order delivered by the Special
     Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “CBI”), Madurai in
     Criminal Case No. 2 of 2003 dated 5th November, 2003, convicting the
     appellant for the offences under Section 7, Section 13(2) read section
     13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing
     her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and with fine of
     ₹1000/- with default clause in respect of the offence under Section 7,
     to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and with fine of ₹
     1000/- with default clause for the offence under Section 13(2) read
     with Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act.
3.   The appellant had been serving as an Inspector of Central Excise.
     The complainant (PW-2) who was a supervisor at Parani Match
     Factory at Sengamalapatti of Sivakasi Taluka, made an application
     for grant of fresh central excise registration certificate for its factory.
     The application was to be dealt within the Thiruthangal – II Range
     which was under the jurisdiction of the appellant-accused. It was the
     case of the prosecution that on 16.09.2002 the appellant demanded
     illegal gratification of a sum of ₹300/-. The complainant did not pay
     the bribe amount although was pressurised and threatened. For want
     of payment of said amount by the complainant, delayed release of
     the certificate. It led to lodging of the complaint on 21.09.2002.
     3.1 The Competent Authority – Commissioner of Central Excise
         and Customs (PW-1), Thiruthangal – II Range granted sanction
         to prosecute the appellant on 26.03.2003. The charge-sheet
         came to be filed on 07.05.2003. At the end of the trial, Special
         Judge, CBI convicted and sentenced the appellant as above,
         which was upheld by the High Court.
1374                                                       [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     3.2 While recording the conviction and sentence against the
         appellant, the trial court as well as the High Court concurrently
         held that the essential elements of demand and payment were
         proved against the appellant to constitute and establish the
         offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. From
         the depositions of the complainant (PW-2), accused (PW-3),
         and the Officer (PW-4) as well as from documentary evidence
         [Ex. P-2 and P-4], the offence was established. The brother
         of the complainant (PW-3) saw the accused accepting ₹300/-
         under the file. It was recorded that the information regarding
         the demand made by the accused was conveyed to the CBI
         office at Chennai.
     3.3 The aspect of result of sodium carbonate phenolphthalein test
         was also noticed and it was a clear finding recorded that when
         the sodium carbonate test was conducted on the right and
         left hands of the appellant-accused, the result was positive.
         When the accused was asked to dip her hands, it turned into
         pink colour. The defence case of non-probability of accused
         having demanded the money was not accepted in light of the
         outweighing evidence in that regard. The High Court endorsed
         to the view taken by the trial court.
4.   In course of hearing today, learned advocate for the appellant stated
     before the Court upon instructions from the appellant that he gives
     up the challenge to the conviction recorded against the appellant
     and that confines the appeal in respect of the sentence part only. He
     requested the court for reduction of the sentence to further submit
     that the period of sentence already undergone may be treated as
     adequate sentence while maintaining the conviction. He submitted
     that the complaint was filed as back as on 23.09.2002 and 23 years
     have passed by since the occurrence of the incident where appellant-
     lady was alleged to have asked for the illegal gratification of ₹300/-.
5.   In M.W. Mohiuddin vs. State of Maharashtra, [(1995) 3 SCC 567]
     this Court maintained the conviction of the appellant for the offences
     under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) and Section 7 of the
     Prevention of Corruption Act, however in the final analysis, reduced
     the sentence noticing that the offence had taken place in the year
     1981. The Court observed,
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                          1375

      K. Pounammal v. State Represented by Inspector of Police


                “….. All these years the appellant has undergone the
                agony of criminal proceedings uptil now and he has
                also lost his job and has a large family to support.
                It is also stated that he has become sick and infirm.
                He has been in jail for some time. For all these
                special reasons, while confirming the conviction of the
                appellant, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to
                the period already undergone. However, we confirm
                the sentence of fine with default clause…..”
                                                            (Para 10)

     5.1 Similarly, in Bechaarbhai S. Prajapati v. State of Gujarat,
         [(2008) 11 SCC 163] it was a Police Sub-Inspector who
         demanded money for allowing a luxury bus carrying marriage
         party to go to the destination. In that case also, both the trial
         court and the High Court held that the demand and acceptance
         of bribe money were proved and the tainted currency notes
         were recovered from the appellant. However, the alternative
         submissions on behalf of the appellant was accepted by the
         court that the sentence would operate harsh as the occurrence
         took place nearly 7 years back. Noticing that the appellant
         had suffered custody for more than six months and taking
         into account all the other relevant aspects, the Court took the
         view that justice would be best served if the sentence was
         reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the
         conviction. The appeal was accordingly dismissed by modifying
         the sentence.
     5.2 Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall vs. State of Gujarat, [(2015) 15
         SCC 506] is yet another precedent. This Court in the facts
         of the case before it reduced the substantive sentence and
         enhanced the fine or compensation. While doing so, following
         pertinent observations were made,
                “The incident, in question, took place as back as on
                29-6-1987. Almost 27 years have passed by. All these
                years, the appellants must have suffered tremendous
                mental trauma and anguish. The appellants have
                lost their jobs and all retiral benefits. The appellant
                Jujarsinh is, as of today, about 76 years old. We are
1376                                                      [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


              informed by the learned counsel for the appellant
              Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall that Gulmahmad is suffering
              from gangrene and has undergone surgery. Both
              the appellants are in jail. We are informed by the
              learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants
              have undergone about more than two months’
              imprisonment.”
                                                            (Para 5)

    5.3 This Court has been consistent in approaching and dealing with
        the cases where the sentence already undergone by the convict
        is treated to be adequate sentence for variety of mitigating
        factors and circumstances operating in the case.
    5.4 The accused in B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Admn. [(1974) 3
        SCC 85], was convicted for the offence under the Prevention
        of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court observed that the main
        purpose of the sentence, broadly stated, is that the accused
        must realise that he has committed an act which is harmful
        not only to the society of which he forms an integral part but
        is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as
        a member of the society. It is the design to protect the society
        by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty
        party from repeating the offence. It was stated that reformatory
        aspect is also relevant and the offender should be reclaimed
        as law abiding citizen.
    5.5 In Dologovinda Mohanty vs. State of Orissa [(1979) 4 SCC
        557], this Court took into account of ₹138/- alleged to have been
        received by accused as illegal gratification, while confirming the
        conviction to reduce the sentence. In the same way, in State
        of Maharashtra v. Rashid B. Mulani [(2006) 1 SCC 407] the
        accused had obtained illegal gratification to the tune of ₹300/- in
        the capacity of Talathi. The said incident had occurred before 19
        years and the case was pending since long before the Special
        Judge. This Court reduced the sentence.
    5.6 In K.P. Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2015) 15 SCC 497]
        it was observed by the Court that the quantum of sentence to
        be awarded would depends upon a variety of factors including
        the mitigating circumstances in a given case. It was stated that
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                              1377

      K. Pounammal v. State Represented by Inspector of Police


           in doing so the courts are influenced in varying degree, and
           adopt reformative, deterrent and punitive approach.
           5.6.1 It was observed thus,
                    “…..delay in the conclusion of the trial and legal
                    proceedings, the age of the accused, his physical/
                    health condition, the nature of the offence, the
                    weapon used and in the cases of illegal gratification
                    the amount of bribe, loss of job and family obligations
                    of the accused are also some of the considerations
                    that weigh heavily with the courts while determining
                    the sentence to be awarded…..”
                                                                (Para 10)

6.   The conviction and sentence have their respective realms. While
     the conviction would be recorded on the basis of evidence adduced
     before the Court which would establish the implication of the accused
     in the offence, the guilty person or the convicted when to be awarded
     a sentence, a host of factors would operate to govern.
     6.1 In determining the final sentence and the nature thereof, variety
         of factors that would operate would include the intervening time
         between the commission of offence and the actual award of the
         sentence, age of the accused, the stress which he or she might
         have suffered because of passage of time during each case
         has remained pending and undecided, the family circumstance
         and such other factors, without becoming exhaustive.
7.   The process of sentencing by the courts is guided by theories such
     as punitive, deterrent or reformative. Each school of thought has
     its own object and purpose to explain awarding of sentence and its
     utility. Amongst these theories, reformative approach has become
     increasingly acceptable to the modern jurisprudence. Reformation
     is something always considered progressive. When there are
     mitigating circumstances, the court would lean towards reducing
     of the sentence. The focus would be on the crime, and not on the
     criminal. The society and system would nurture the guilt with positivity,
     while selecting the sentence.
8.   In light of the above principles guiding the sentencing process,
     the submission of learned advocate for the appellant could be
     countenanced that in the case on hand the incident had taken place
1378                                                       [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


     on 23.09.2002. Since then, more than two decades have passed by.
     The appellant underwent imprisonment for 31 days. The appellant
     is a widow lady. It was stated that she is now 75 years of age. The
     appellant has been staying alone, the husband having died, stated
     her learned counsel. She belongs to scheduled caste and has been
     spending her life negotiating all hardships.
9.   The prolongation of a criminal case for an unreasonable period is in
     itself a kind of suffering. It amounts to mental incarceration for the
     person facing such proceedings. For a person who is convicted and
     who has appealed against his or her conviction and sentence and who
     everyday awaits the fate of litigation, spends time in distress. In the
     present-day system of administration of justice, in which proceedings
     have often go on protracted unreasonably and therefore unbearably,
     the passage of long time itself makes the person suffer a mental agony.
10. The aspects in the present case as highlighted above that the incident
    had occurred more than 22 years ago and that the age of the widow
    appellant is 75 years who stays alone, the Court finds it appropriate
    that she may not be made to undergo the imprisonment again. In
    the totality of the facts and circumstances, the imprisonment already
    undergone by her is treated to be adequate sentence.
     10.1 The sentence awarded to the appellant is accordingly reduced
          to the actual undergone. At the same time the imposition of
          fine is required to be increased. The appellant shall be liable to
          pay fine of ₹25,000/- over and above originally imposed. The
          amount of fine shall be paid on or before 10th September, 2025.
11. The appeal is thus dismissed of by confirming the conviction of the
    appellant, however by modifying the sentence which is awarded as
    above. It is provided that if the appellant fails to pay the amount of
    fine as directed above within the stipulated time, the original order
    of sentence shall revive and operate rendering the appellant liable
    to surrender before the authorities concerned.

     Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain