Holding

The conviction under Section 468 IPC stands, but the substantive sentence must be reduced from two years to one year.

Summary

The appellant, a clerk in Syndicate Bank, was found to have opened a false bank account and fraudulently withdrawn Rs.42,000. She was charged under IPC sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (s.13(1)(d) read with s.13(2)). The trial court convicted her and sentenced her to two years rigorous imprisonment for sections 420 and 468, six months each for sections 465 and 471, and two years for the corruption offence, along with a fine. The Kerala High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentences for the corruption offence and section 420 to one year each, leaving the two‑year term for section 468 untouched. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the omission to reduce the section 468 sentence was erroneous. The Supreme Court held that, in the interest of justice, the conviction under section 468 should be maintained but the substantive sentence reduced from two years to one year, thereby ordering a uniform one‑year rigorous imprisonment for all offences.

Issues considered

Whether the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code should be reduced, given that the High Court reduced sentences for other offences but omitted this one.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 420, s. 465, s. 468, s. 471
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2)

Subjects

corruptionbank fraudsentencingreduction of sentenceIPCPrevention of Corruption Actcriminal appealconvictionrigorous imprisonment

Judgment

)_ \

A K.RADHAI
v.
C.B.I., COCHIN UNIT
''I

SEPTEMBER 28, 2007
8
[C.K. THAKKERANDALTAMASKABIR,JJ.)

Service Law:
c Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988; S. 13(l)(d) r/w S. 13(2)/Penal
Code, 1860; Ss. 420, 465, 468 and 471:
Corruption-Bank employee allegedly withdrawn certain amount
from bank accountfraudulently-Trial Courtfound accused-employee
guilty ofcommitting offences u/ss. 420 and 468 !PC and u/s. 13(2) rl
D w s.13 (1)(d) of 1988 Act and sentenced her accordingly-On appeal,
High Court affirmed conviction reducing sentence from 2 years to 1
year for offences punishable u/ss. 420 !PC and s.13(2) rlw S.13(J)(d)
ofthe 1988 Act, but no reduction in sentence was orderedfor offence
punishable u/s. 468 !PC-On appeal, Held: On the facts and in the
E circumstances of the case, ends ofjustice would be met ifconviction
ofthe accused is maintained but substantive sentence imposed on her
u/s. 468 IPC is reducedfrom two years to one year-Directions issued
accordingly-Sentencing.
-1-·
F Appellant was employed as a Clerk in a Bank. According to the
Prosecution, the appellant got opened a false bank account in the b~nk
and fraudulently withdrawn an amount of Rs.42,000/-. After
investigation, charges were framed against the accused-appellant for
committing offences punishable under Sections465,471and420 of the
G Indian Penal Code as also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Trial Court held the
charge proved against the appellant, convicted and ordered her to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for offences
punishable under Sections 420 and 468 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for
H 380
,
(

,I
>--·
K. RADHAI v. C.B.I., COCHIN UNIT 381

six months each under Sections 465 and 471 IPC and rigorous A
imprisonment for two years for an offence punishable under Section
13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and also imposed fine. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an
appeal before the High Court. The High Courtconfirmed the conviction
reducing the sentence to one year for offences punishable u/s.13(2) r/w B
s.13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also u/s.420 IPC.
')- However, no reduction in sentence was ordered by the High Court for
~
offence punishable u/s.468 IPC. Hence the present appeal.

Accused-appellant contended that though the High Court had c
reduced substantive sentence from two years to one year for certain
offences, however, sentence of two years imposed on her has remained
as it is, in view of the fact that no reduction in sentence for the offence
punishable u/s.468 IPC was ordered and the sentence of two years as
imposed by the trial Court continued to remain as it was. D
L
..... Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:l.1. It appears thatthe High Court was ofthe view that an
order of conviction recorded by the trial Court did not call for
interference and, hence, it confmned the conviction ofthe appellant. It, E
however, exercised discretion by reducing the sentence imposed on the
appellant. Precisely, because of that the High Court reduced the
sentence from two years to one year for the offences punishable under
the Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988 as also for an offence punishable
under Section 420 IPC. Since there was no mention ofSection 468 IPC, F
the sentence of two years imposed on the appellant has remained as it
was. [Para8) (384-C-D)

- ~
1.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ends of
justice would be met ifconviction ofthe appellant-accused for an offence
punishable under Section 468 IPC is maintained but the substantive
G
sentence imposed on her for the said offence is reduced from two years
to one year. [Para 9) [384-E)

1.3. The appellant-accused who is convicted for offences punishable
H
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A under the Indian Penal Code and under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
[Para 10] [384-G]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1303 of 2007.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 12. l 0.2006 of the High Court
ofKerala at Emakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 9of1997.
Romy Chacko for the Appellant.
c P. Panneswaran for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and final order passed
D by the High Court of Kerala on October 12, 2006 in Criminal Appeal
No. 9of1997. By the said appeal, the High Court confirmed the eonviction
of the appellant recorded by the Court of the Special Judge (CBI),
Ernakulam on December 27, 1996 but reduced the sentence.
E 3. The facts in nutshell are that the appellant was employed as a
Clerk in Syndicate Bank at Fort Branch, Trivendrum. It was the case of
the prosecution that a false bank account got opened with Account No.
15799 in the said Branch and an amount ofRs.42,000/- was fraudulently
withdrawn by the accused. After investigation, charge was framed against
the accused-appellant in the Court of the Special Judge, Central Bureau
F oflnvestigation (CBI), Em*"lam for offences punishable under Sections
465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as also under
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. I

G 4. The Special Judge, after appreciating the evidence of prosecution
witnesses, held the charge proved, convicted the appellant and ordered
her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for offences
punishable under Sections 420 and 468, IPC, rigorous imprisonment for
six months each under Sections 465 and 4 71, IPC and rigorous
H imprisonment for two years for an offence punishable under Section 13(2)
K. RADHAI v. C.B.I., COCHIN UNIT [THAKKER, J.] 383

read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A
Fine was also imposed by the C?iurt.
5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the
appellant preferred an appeal. The High Court held that no illegality was
committed by the trial Court in finding the appellant-accused guilty and in B
convicting her. With regard to sentence, however, the High Court observed
that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, liberal view was
required to be taken. The High Court, therefore, in the operative part of
the judgment, observed:
"Last question is regarding the punishment. Counsel for the C
appellant argued that the alleged offence was in 1993 and the
money was taken during a catastrophic situation as mentioned in
Ext.P19. It is further submitted that her husband has deserted her,
that she has to maintain her children, that she lost the job also
because of the misconduct she has committed and that a lenient D
view may be taken. Taking into account all these circumstances
together, the sentence of imprisonment for two years each imposed
for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section
13 (1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 420 IPC is
reduced to an imprisonment for one year each. No interference is E
required with regard to the imposition of fine or punishment imposed
for other offences. The sentence of imprisonment shall run
concurrently".
6. The appellant approached this Court against the order passed by
the High Court. On March 9, 2007, when the matter was called out for F
admission hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel that though
the sentence of imprisonment for two years imposed by the trial Court
for an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was reduced from two years
to one year as also sentence of imprisonment for two years for an offence G
punishable under Section 420, IPC was reduced from two years to one
year, no order of reduction of sentence was passed so far as the offence
punishable under Section 468, IPC was concerned. The resultant effect
was that though the High Court had reduced substantive sentence of the
appellant-accused from two years to one year for certain offences, H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R.

A sentence of two years imposed on the appellant-accused has remained
as it is in view of the fact that for an offence punishable under Section )-
468, IPC, no reduction was ordered and the sentence imposed by the
trial Court continued to remain as it was. Notice was, therefore, issued
by the Court only on question of reduction of sentence.
B 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in our opinion,
the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is well founded
and must be accepted. It appears that the High Court was of the view
c that an order of conviction recorded by the trial Court did not call for
interference and, hence, it confirmed the conviction of the appellant. It,
however, exercised discretion by reducing the sentence imposed on the
appellant. Precisely, because of that the High Court reduced the sentence
from two years to one year for the offences punishable under the
D Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as also for an offence punishable
under Section 420, IPC. Since there was no mention of Section 468, IPC,
the sentence of two years imposed on the appellant has remained as it
was.
9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in our opinion,
E ends of justice would be met if conviction of the appellant-accused for
an offence punishable under Section 468, IPC is maintained but the
substantive sentence imposed on her for the said offence is reduced from
two years to one year.
10. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the appeal deserves
F to be partly allowed and is accordingly allowed to the extent that the
conviction of the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 468,
IPC is confirmed but the substantive sentence imposed by the trial Court
and confirmed by the High Court is reduced from two years to one year.
In other words, the appellant-accused who is convicted for offences
G punishable under the Indian Penal Code and under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
S.K.S. Appeal partly allowed.