Harbans Singh Vs. State of Punjab
 INSC 128 (25 July 1984)
VARADARAJAN, A. (J)
CITATION: 1984 AIR 1594 1985 SCR (1) 214 1984
SCC (4) 1 1984 SCALE (2)78
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 9
Court to record in writing 'special reasons'
when awarding less than the minimum sentence-High Court reducing sentence
imposed by trial court to sentence already undergone-Whether valid and legal.
Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act 1947 prescribes a minimum sentence and discretion is conferred on the Court
to give less than the minimum 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 Punjab,  2 S.C.R. 1152.
[109B] In the instant case, the High Court for reasons utterly untenable
interfered with the sentence imposed by the trial court and reduced it to the
sentence already undergone. It erred in showing a misplaced sympathy
unsustainable in law.
[214H; 215A] ^
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1481 of 1984.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 23rd
January, 1984 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 45 of
Harbans Lal and Balmokand Goyal for the
The Order of the Court was delivered by
DESAI, 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 High Court who for reasons utterly untenable interfered
with the sentence imposed by the trial court and reduced it to sentence already
undergone which in the facts and circumstances of the case was wholly
In Meet Singh v. State of Punjab,(1) this
Court pointed out that Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act prescribes
a minimum sentence and discretion is conferred on the court to give less than
the minimum for any special 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 reasons which weighed with the learned Judge in reducing
the sentence to the sentence undergone could not be special reasons. Therefore,
in our view, the learned Judge was entirely in error in showing a misplaced
sympathy unsustainable in law. With these observations we reject the special
N.V.K. Petition dismissed.