Holding

Only truly unusual, case‑specific circumstances qualify as "special reasons" for deviating from the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; ordinary factors such as loss of job or family responsibilities do not, rendering the High Court's reduction unlawful.

Summary

Meet Singh was convicted under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, together with a fine. The Punjab & Haryana High Court, while upholding the conviction, reduced the imprisonment term to the period already served, citing the appellant's dismissal from service and his status as a family man as "special reasons", and increased the fine. On special leave, the Supreme Court examined the meaning of "special reasons" in the proviso to Section 5(2) and held that such reasons must be unusual and particular to the accused, not ordinary circumstances common to many offenders. Consequently, the High Court’s reduction of the sentence was beyond its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, thereby reinstating the statutory minimum sentence.

Issues considered

Whether dismissal from service and being a family man constitute "special reasons" under the proviso to Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Interpretation of the term "special reasons" in the context of sentencing discretion under the Act.
Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reducing the sentence below the statutory minimum.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 161
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947s. 5(2)
Prevention of Food Adulteration Acts. 16

Subjects

Prevention of Corruption ActSection 5(2)minimum sentencespecial reasonssentencing discretioncriminal lawappealspecial leave petition

Judgment

1152

A MEET SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
February 27, 1980
[D. A. DESAI AND A. D. KOSIIAL, JJ.]
B
"Special Reasons" in ordinaiy and in the context of sentencing process-- •
Meaning of-Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 5(2) and proviso thereto
scope of-Duty of the Court while exercising its discretion under the proviso,
explained.
•
Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 prescribes a minimum
c sentence of one year, in all.cases of conviction under the Act, with a proviso
that the Court may for any special reasons r~orded in writing impose a
sentence of imprisonment of less than one year.

Tho petitioner was convicted for having committed offences under section 161
l.P. C. and Section 5 (2) of POCA and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one
year on each count and on the second count, also to pa.y a fine of Rs. 400/-
D or in default to suffer further R.J. for three months by the learned Special
Judge. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to n1n
concurrently.

Jn appeal the High Court, while maintaining the conviction, reduced the ·
substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year to 1 the sentence
undergone till the date of the' Judgment of the High Court and increased the
E fine to Rs. 4,000 /- (Rupees four thousand) or in default to suffer further R.I. t
for one year. The I-ligh Court, while so altering the sentence, took into
consideration two facts, namely, (i) that the petitioner was dismissed from
service and (ii) that be is a family man.

Dismissing the special leave petition of the convict against his conviction,
there being no appeal by St.re, the Court
F
HELD: 1. The language of the proviso to Section 5(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act makes it abundantly clear that court is under an obligation
to impose a minimum punishment once the conviction is recorded under Section
5 (2) and the minimum punishment of imprisonri1ent is for a term not less than
one year. Undoubtedly the proviso confers power on the Court to a'vard less
than the minimum punishment if the Court convicting ood sentencing the accused,
(; is of the opinion that for any special reasons which the Court is under an
obligation to record in writing, sentence of imprisonment for a term less
than the minimum is called for. Conceding that the quantum of sentence is
in the discretion of the trial Court, where the Legislature stepped in and Circum-
scribed and fettered the· discretion by directing in1posing of a minimum
sentence, the court can exercise its discretion within the limited spheres left open
by legislature. The Legis};)ture circumscribed the discretion by reqriiring the
0 Court to impose minimum sentence but left it open to award less than the
minimum statutorily prescribed for special reasons. The reasons have to be
special reasons. The words 'special reasons' in the context in which they are
MEET SINGH v. PUNJAB (Desai, J.) 1153

<Used could only mean special to the accused on whom sentence is being imposed. A
The Court has to weigh reasons advanced in respect of each individual accused
whose C'lSe is taken up for awarding sentence. [1155C·Gl
In the instant case, there was no justification much less special reasons
-matutorily required, for awarding less than the minimum sentence. Stricto sensu
<:ourt exceeded its jurisdictjon while interlering with the quantum of sentence.
f!l57EJ
•''· B
Jagdish Prasad v. West Bengal, [1972] 2 S.C.R. p. 845 @ 851, relied on.
I 2. The word "special" has to be understood in contradistinction to word

~
·"general" or "ordinary". "Special" means distinguished by some unusual quality,
·out of the ordinary. Again "special" means 'particular'; peculiar; different from
-Others; designed for a particular purpose, occasion, or person;· limited· in range;
.con.fined to a definite field of action. 'fhus, anything which is common to a c
large class gove.med by the same statute· cannot be said to be: special to each
<>f them. And, "special reasons" in the context of sentencing process must
be special to the accused in tile case or special to the focts and circumstances
<>f the case in which the sentence is being awarded. [1155G·H, 1156Al

3. In the instant .case, the only two reasons special according to the High
<:ourt for ·awarding less than the minimum sentence are (i) appellant before D
it has lost his job and (ii) and he is a married mau with children. These two
reasons would be common to ninety nine percent of cases tried under Prevention
-0-f Corruption Act and if they can1 be Styled as "special reasons" for awarding
less than the minimum sentence the proviso would be rendered' wholly nugatory.
(1156G-H, 1157AJ
Observation :
E
The Court should not be oblivious ta the fact that while conferring discr~tion
in the matter of awarding adequa.te sentence within limits prescribed by the
-statute, the Legislature finding cases of misplaced sympathy in sentencing process
fettered the Court's discretion by prescribing a minimum sentence and making
it obligatory to record special reasons for awarding Jess than the minimum.
ff still the notice of encroachments on court's discretion is not ta.ken, time may
not be far when the Legislature out of exasperation may resort to what it has F
done in Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act where minimum
-sentence i~ prescribed and Court's discretion to award less in any case is who1Iy
taken away. [1157A-Cj
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(Cr!.) No. 405 of 1980.

. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and Order dated
31-10-1979 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Crl. Appeal No .
986/77.
G

N. C. Talukdar, Shrinath Singh and M. S. Dhillon for the Peti-
tionar.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H
DESAI, J.-While we decline to grant special leave in this case,
an unsavoury feature of the judgment which rather stares into our
1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980) 2 S.C.R.

A face, and surfac~ at regular intervals, makes it obligatory to make a
few observations.
Petitioner was "convicted for having committed offences under
Section 161 of the I.P.C. and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year on each
B count and on the second count, also to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- or
in default to suffer further R.I. for three months by the learned

.. Special Judge. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were
directed to run concurrently.
Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 989 of 1977 against his
c conviction and sentence to the High Court .of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh.
This appeal came up for final hearing before a learned single
judge of the High Court on 31st October, 1979. When the appeal
was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner appear-
ing in the High Court did not question either the correctness or the
D
legality of the conviction. This is unquestionable as the High Court
has observed while disposing of the appea'I that "no arguments on
merits are advanced". The High Court then proceeded to cons.der
adequacy or otherwise of sentence imposed on the appellant before
it The High Court then proceeded to reduce the substantive sentence
E of the appellant of rigorous imprisonment for one year to the sentence
11ndergone till the date of the judgment of the High Court. While
so reducing the substantive sentence the High Court noticed the
following circumstances which in the opinion of the High Court were
sufficient to enable it to interfere with the sentences imposed upon
the present petitioner. It· would be advantageous to extract the rele-
vant observations : -
"The learned counsel for the appellant has only submitted that
the appellant has already been dismissed from service; that he is a
family man, and that his sentence may be reduced to that already
undergone. In my view no useful purpose will be served by sending
G him again to jail to serve his unexpired period of sentence. He has
already lost his job. The ends of justice will be amply met if his
sentence of imprisonment is reduce(! to that already undergone and
instead sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 400 to Rs. 4000 (four
thousand) or in default to suffer further R.I. for one year. I order
accordingly."
H
The judgment of the High Court throws no light on the qucstion
as to how much sentence the appellant had undergone by the time the
MEET SINGH v. PUNJAB (Desai, J.) 115 5

High Coun released him on bail while admitting his appeal. But A
it cannot be more than a few days only.
Petitioner as pointed out earlier is convic'ed for committing offenc-
es under Section 161 IPC and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads as
• under:- B
"P.any pubEc ser~;:int who commits criminal miscond•aci
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than one year but which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to fine :
Provided that the court may, for any special reasons c
recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of
less than one year." (underlining ours)

The language of the proviso makes it abundantly clear that court
is under an obligation to impose a minimum punishment once the

j conviction is recorded under Section 5 (2) and the minimum punish-
ment of imprisonment is for a term not less than one year. Undoubt-
edly the proviso confers power on the Court to award less than the
D

minimum punishment, if the Court convicting and sentencing the
accused, is of the opinion that for any special reasons which the court
is under an obligation to record in writing, sentence of imprison-
ment for a term less than the minimum is called for. Conceding that. E
the quantum of sentence is in the discretion of the trial court, where
the. Legislature stepped in and circumscribed .and fettered the discre-
tion by directing imposition of a minimum sentence, the court can
exercise its discretion within the limited sphere left open by legis-
':>·. lature. The ugislature circumscribed the discretion by requiring
the coun to impose minimum sentence but left it open to award less F
than the minimum statutorily prescribed for special reasons. The
reasons have to be special reasons. The words 'special reasons' in
the context in which they are used could only mean special to the
accused on whom sentence is being imposed. The cO'Jrt has to wci gh
reasons advanced in respect of each individual accused whose cctsc
G
is taken up for awarding sentence. The word 'special' has to he
understood in contradistinction to word 'general' or 'ordinary'. Now
what docs term 'special' connote? "Speciru" means distinguished by
some .unusual quality; out of the ordinary. (See Words and l'hrasos,
Permanent Edition, Volume 39A p. 82.) Webster defines "special"
as particular; peculiar; different from others; designed for a particular H
purpose, occasion. or person; limited in range; confined to a definite
field of action. Thus anything which is common to a large class
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R.

A governed by the same statute cannot be said to be special to each of
them. It would thus unquestionably appear that "special reasons"
in the context of sentencing process must be special to the accused
in the case or special to the facts and the circumstances of the case
in which the sentence is being awarded.
B
The High Court then was under an obligation to award minimum
sentence unless the accused advanced special reasons, i.e. special to
him in the facts and circumstances of the; case and successfully.invok-
ed the discretion vested in the Court to award !es~ than the minimum
sentence prescribed by law. The Court observes that this appellant-
c corrupt officer whose corruption was proved to its satisfaction because
the High Court declined to interfere with the conviction of the appel-
lant for corruption and who must consequently or of necessity be
dismissed from service, considered his dismissal from service as a ,
special reason. Frankly speaking the High Court honestly did not
expect any corrupt officer !o be retained in service. Ordinarily a
D
corrupt official whose corruption is proved to the hilt is fo~ble to be
dismissed, and therefore, this aspect is not special to the appellant.
l
Accordingly if an officer proved to be corrupt to the satisfaction of
the court is liable to be dismissed it cannot influence the question of
sentence. Also because it would be true of all public servants dealt
1£ . with under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Another special reason that appealed to the High Court is that appel-
lant is a 'family man'. Possibly the High Court considered marriage
and children of the appellant as special to him. An unsually large
numb~r of the Government officers from amongst those charged with
cormption and convicted for the same would be married men with
family, unless they joined service before marriage and became corrupt
very soon at the inception of the career. And ordinarily speaking
a family of corrupt officer in some cases if not all benefits by the
corrupt activity unless shown to the contrary which is not the case. '
If large number of public servants from those convict<(_d under section
G 5 {2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are married men with
children it passes comprehension how this fact can be styled as
special to the appellant influencing his sentence. It may be men-
tioned without fear of contradiction that the only two reasons, special
according to the High Court for awarding less than the minimum
sentence are (i) appellant has lost his job and (ii) he is a married
H man with children. These two reasons would be common to ninety
nine per cent of cases tried under Prevention of Corruption Act and
if they can be styled as special reasons for awarding less than the
•
MEET SINGH v. PUNJAB (Desai, J.) 1157

minimum sentence the proviso would be rendered wholly nugatory. A
The Court should not be oblivious to the fact that while conferring
discretion in the matter of awarding adequate sentence within limits
prescribed by the statute, the Legislature finding cases of misplaced
sympathy in sentencing process fettered the Court's discretion by
prescribing a minimum sentence and making it obligatory to record .
special reasons for awarding less .. than the minimum. If still the B
notice of encroachments on court's discretion is not taken, time may
not be far when the Legislature out of exasperation may resort to
what it has done in Section 16 ·of Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act where minimum sentence is prescribed and Courts' discretion to
award less in any case is wholly taken away. In this context it
would be timely to recall the warning uttered by this Court in Jagdish
c
Prasad v. West Bengal(') This Court said :
"Offences under the Act being anti-social crimes affect-
ing the health and well-being of our people, the Legislature
having regard to the trend of courts to impose in most cases
only fines or where a sentence of imprisonment was passed D
a light sentence was awarded even in cases where a severe
sentence was called for, & more drastic step wa§ taken by
it in prescribing a minimum sentence and a minimum fin~
· to be imposed even for a first offence."
In this case, there was no justification, much less special reasons E
statutorily required, for awarding less than the minimum sentence.
stricto sensu Court exceeded its jurisdiction while interfering with the
quantum of sentence. And with this observation we dismiss the special
leave petition.

S.R. Petition dismissed.

(!) [1972]2 S.C.R. p. 845 rt 851.