MUNILAL MOCHIversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

                    [2011] 9 S.C.R. 439


                      MUNILAL MOCHI                            A
                              v.
                 STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
            (Criminal Appeal No .. 1429 bf 2011)
                       JULY 21, 2011
                                                               B
     [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.}

    Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:

      ss.5(1),(c)(d), 5(2) and 5(3), proviso - Minimum sentence c
 of one year - Power of Court to reduce the sentence -
 Conviction by trial court u/ss. 120-8, 420, 467, 468, 471-A /PC
 rlw ss.5(1)(d), 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act- Upheld
by High Court reducing sentence from 2~ years to 1~ years
RI - Plea before Supreme Court for reducing the sentence 0
to the period already undergone - HELD: In view of the
proviso to s.5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the
facts and circumstances of the case that the accused is 71
years of age and has already undergone 6 months
imprisonment, that from the date of occurrence, 29 years have E
passed and there is no record to show that the accused was
involved in any other criminal case, ends of justice would be
met by modifying the sentence to the period already
undergone - Ordered accordingly - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.
120-8, 420, 467, 468, 471-A /PC - Sentence/Sentencing.
                                                               F
     On 14.09.1983, the Dy. S.P. Cabinet (Vigilance)
Department, Gov~rnment of Bihar, Patna, made a written
complaint before the Office-in-charge, Vigilance Police
Station, Patna, alleging that in six Schemes under
National Rural Employment Programme ("NREP") after G
preliminary enquiry, it was detected that Junior Engineer/
agents      of     Department/Agency          concerned
misappropriated government money in the said Schemes
and committed offences punishable u/ss 120-8, 420, 467,
                            439                            H
    440      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 9 S.C.R.


A 468, 471 (A) IPC and s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1 )(d) of the
  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. On the basis of the
  said complaint, an FIR was lodged and a Vigilance Case
  was registered. After investigation, a charge sheet was
  submitted wherein the name of the appellant figured for
B the first time as an accused, after more than 5 years of          •,
  registration of the FIR. The Special Judge (Vigilance)
  convicted the appellant of the offences charged and
  sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of
  2% years and to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/-. On appeal, the
c High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the
  sentence from 2% years to 1% years.

        The instant appeal was confined only to the question
    of sentence.

D         Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1 The only bar against the appellant insofar
  as reduction of sentence is, the minimum sentence
  prescribed in s. 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
E Inasmuch as the appellant was also convicted u/ss
  5(1)(c)(d) and 5(2) in the normal circumstance, the court
  has to impose minimum sentence of 1 year. However, the
  proviso appended to sub-s. (3) gives power to the court
  to impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than 1 year
  for any special reasons recorded in writing. [para 8) [444-        • .
F C-G-H]

        1.2 It is not in dispute that the occurrence related to
  the period 1982-83. The appeltant retired from the post of
  Deputy Collector on 01.10.2003, even before his
G conviction. He stood convicted by the trial court in 2004,             •
  i.e., after a long period of 21 years. The High Court to.ok
  more than 6 years to dispose of the appeal. The appellant
  has undergone the ordeal of facing trial in an uncertainty
  about the nature of conviction for such a long period. As
H on date, the appellant is 71 years of age and has already
               MUNILAL MOCHI v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.                441


     "'   undergone 6 months imprisonment. From the date of                 A
          occurrence, 29 years have passed. There is no record to
          show that the appellant was involved in any other criminal
          case. In the circumstances, ends of justice would be met
          by modifying the sentence to the period already
    ,'    undergone. Ordered accordingly. [para 9] [445-A-F]                B
              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
          No. 1429 of 2011.

              From the Judgment & Order dated 28.07 .2010 of the High
          Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl. Appeal (S.J.) No. 600 of     c
          2004.

               Nagendra Rai, T. Mahipal for the Appellant.

               Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas for the Respondents.
                                                                            D
               The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
               P.SATHASIVAM,J. 1. Leave granted.
               2. This appeal is directed against the common final
          judgment and order dated 28.07.2010 passed by the learned         E
          Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in
          Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 600 of 2004 which was filed by the
          appellant herein along with Criminal Appeal (SJ) Nos. 576, 595,
.    '    609, and 625 of 2004 whereby the High Court dismissed the
          appeal upholding the order of conviction passed by the trial      F
          Court and reduced the sentence from two and a half years to
          one and a half years.
               3. Brief facts:
•" .            (a) Several schemes of National Rural Employment            G
           Programme (in short "NREP") executed between the years
           1982-83 by the officers posted at Piro, District Ara with the
          ,assistance of some executing agents/agencies came under the
           scan of the Vigilance Department. Enquiries including re-
           measurement of the Schemes/works executed under these            H
    442     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A Schemes revealed that some local officers posted in the Block
  in connivance with agents appointed for few Schemes
  fraudulently withdrew and misappropriated the Government
  funds in relation to those schemes and created official records/
  documents to cover up such defalcation.
B
        (b) On 14.09.1983, one Hem Raj Prasad, Dy. S.P. Cabinet
  (Vigilance) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, made a
  written complaint before the Office-in-charge, Vigilance Police
  Station, Patna, alleging that in Piro Block of District Ara, under
  NREP, six Schemes viz., Scheme Nos. 27/1982-83, 28/1982-
C 83, 25/1982-83, 21/1982-83, 22/1982-83 and 14/1982-83 were
  executed and in those Schemes after preliminary enquiry, it was
  detected that Junior Engineer/agents of concerned Department/
  Agency have misappropriated government money in the said
  Schemes and as such the persons have committed an offence
D under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 (A) of the Indian
  Penal Code (hereinafter referred t"' as "the IPC") and Section
  5(2) read with Section 5( 1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
  Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the P.C. Act"). On the
  basis of the said complaint, police lodged a First Information
E Report (in short "the FIR") and registered a Vigilance P.S. Case
  No. 18 of 1983 under the aforesaid sections. According to the
  appellant, his name was not mentioned in the FIR.
        (c) On 14.09.1988, Special Case no. 87 of 1983 was
F initiated in the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Patna. After    '   .
  investigation, charge sheet was submitted wherein the name
  of the appellant was figured for the first time as an accused,
  after more than 5 years of registration of the FIR and he was
  charge sheeted for offences under Sections 120-8, 420, 467,
  468 and 477A of the IPC and under Section 5(2) read with
G Section 5(1)(c)(d) of the P.C. Act. After examining the                  •
  witnesses, the Special Judge (Vigilance) Patna, by order dated
  19.07.2004, convicted the appeHant for the offences punishable
  under the aforesaid Sections and sentenced him rigorous
  imprisonment for a period of two and a half years and to pay
H fine of Rs. 15,000/- having default clause.
                    MUNILAL MOCH! v. STATE OF 81HAR & ANR.                  443
                              [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
        ....
                     (d) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Judge,           A
                the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 600 of 2004 before the
                High Court of Judicature at Patna. The learned Single Judge
                of the High Court, by impugned judgment dated 28.07.2010,
    ,~
                dismissed the a·ppeal upholding the order of conviction passed
                by the trial Court but reduced the sentence from two and a half        8
                years to one and a half years.

                     (e) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has
                preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

                    4. Heard Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel for the      c
                appellant and Mr. Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the
                respondents.
                      5. While ordering notice on 11.04.2001, this Court
                confined itself only to the question of sentence. In view of the
                same, there is no need to traverse or discuss the facts leading D
                to his conviction. We have already noted that the appellant was
                convicted under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and
                1208 of IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c)(d) of
               the P.C. Act by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Patna. The High
               Court modified the sentence alone on appeal filed by the E
               appellant by reducing the substantive sentence imposed on
               him to undergo RI for two and a half years under Sections 409
               and 1208 IPC to a period of RI for one and a half years.
r   J          Similarly, sentence to undergo RI for two and a half years
               imposed under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the IPC F
               and Section 5(2) and Section 5(1)(c)(d} of the P.C. Act were
               reduced to a period of RI for one and a half years.
                   6. Now, we have to consider whether the appellant has
•   i
               made out a case for further reduction in the quantum of
                                                                                   G
               sentence?
                   7. Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel, by drawing
               our attention to the fact that the present appellant was not
               named in the FIR and he was. convicted nearly after 25 years
               from the date of occurrence and as on date he is 71 years of        H
     444         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 9 S.C.R.


A age submitted that since he had already undergone 6 months
  imprisonment, the period undergone would be appropriate
  sentence and prayed for reduction to that extent. On the other
  hand, Mr. Gopal Singh submitted that it is not a fit case for
  reduction of sentence. In any event, according to him, in view
B of sub-Section 3, the imprisonment shall not be less than 1
  year, hence it is not a fit case for reduction, even on the
   sentence.
          8. The only bar against the appellant insofar as reduction
     of sentence is the minimum sentence prescribed in Section
c    5(3) of the Act. The relevant proviso appended thereto reads
     as under:-
           "5. Criminal misconduct.
           (1) xxx
D
           (2) xxx
           (3) Whoever habitually commits-
           (i) an offence punishable under Section 162 or Section 163
           of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
 E
           (ii) an offence punishable under Section 165A of the Indian
           Penal Code, 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:      '   .
 F         Provided that the court may, for any special reasons
           recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment
           of less than one year.
           (4) XXX"
 G Inasmuch as, he was also convicted under Section 5(1)(c)(d)
                                                                             •
   and Section 5(2) in the normal circumstance, the court has to
   impose minimum sentence of 1 year. However, proviso
   appended to sub-Section 3 gives power to the court to impose
   a sentence of imprisonment of less than 1 year for any special
 H reasons recorded in writing.
           MUNILAL MOCHI v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.                    445
                     [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
            9. It is not in dispute that the occurrence related to perio'd   A
       1982-83. Even on 01, 10.2003, he retired from the post of
       Deputy Collector, Nalanda and stood convicted by the trial
       Court as aforesaid only in 2004, i.e., after a long period of 21
     . years. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Nagendra Rai, he had
       undergone the ordeal of facing trial anticipating uncertainty         B
       about the nature of conviction for such a long period. It is true
       that the appellant was not named in the FIR. However, after a
       period of 5 years, when the prosecution filed a chargesheet,
       he was shown as 3rd accused. As rightly pointed out by Mr.
       Rai, the appellant had reeled under the threat of being convicted     c
       and sentenced for all these 21 years. Even the High Court had
       taken more than 6 years to dispose of the appeal. As on date,
       the appellant is 71 years of age and has already undergone 6
.,     months imprisonment. If we consider the date of occurrence,
       29 years have been passed now. There is no record to show             D
       that the appellant was involved in other criminal case.
       Considering the case of the prosecution, namely, several
       illegalities and irregularities in execution of NREP which is a
       Scheme formulated by the Government of India, the fact that
       the occurrence relates to the year 1982-83, the trial went for        E
       21 years and ended in conviction in 2004, the appellant retired
       from service even before conviction and his appeal was kept
       pending in the High Court for nearly 6 years, taking note of his
       present age, namely, 71 years and undergone 6 months
       imprisonment, we feel that ends of justice would be met by
       modifying the sentence to the period already undergone.               F
           10. In the light of the above discussion, while confirming
      the conviction imposed on the appellant and having adverted
      to special circumstances in the case on hand, the sentence
      alone is modified to the extent, i.e., the period of imprisonment,     G
      namely, 6 months undergone in prison as substantive sentence.
      To this extent, the impugned order of the High Court is
      .nodified. The appeal is allowed in part to the extent mentioned
      above.

      R.P.                                      Appeal Partly allowed. . H