State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. S.R.
Rangadamappa  INSC 68 (1 October 1982)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA
(J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
CITATION: 1982 AIR 1492 1983 SCR (1) 496 1982
SCC (3) 223 1982 SCALE (1)842
Interpretation-Satute prescribed minimum
sentence-No discretion given to court-Court, if can reduce the sentence to less
than the minimum prescribed '
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]
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 confirmed 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 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 UN under stably 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.