SHANTI LAL MEENAversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI, CBI

                    [2015] 3 S.C.R. 579


                   SHANTI LAL MEENA                            A

                             v.
              STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, CBI
            (Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2015)                  B

                      APRIL 07, 2015
         [T. S. THAKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH AND
                   R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]                          C
        Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- ss. 7, 13(2) rw s.
 13(1)(d) - Commission of offence under - Quantum of
sentence - Determination of- Public servant-Sub Inspector
of Police caught red-handed while accepting the bribe in the o
case at the investigation stage - Conviction for the offences
u/s. 7 and 13(2) rw s. 13(1)(d) and sentenced to two years RI
for the offence u/s. 7 with a fine and RI for two years with fine
u/s. 13(2) rw s. 13(1)(d) - Upheld by the High Court- Issue·
of quantum of sentence before this Court - Held: While E
awarding sentence in cases under the PC Act, the court
should bear in mind the expectation of the people of its
paramount duty to prevent corruption in society by providing
prompt conviction and stem sentence - Appellant was the
sub-inspector of police entrusted with the task of law F
enforcement- The keeper had become the poacher- There
is no serious scope for reforming the convicted public servant
- The moment he is convicted, he loses his job - Thus,
interference with the punishment awarded by the courts below G
not called for.

       Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1 Ttiere is no serious scope for reforming
                                                               H
                            579
    580              SUPREME COORIREPORTS'~l                              [2015] 3 S.C.R.


    A the public servanfci:>nvicted under PC Act. The moment
      he is convicted, he loses his job. Hence, there is no
      significance to the theory of reformation of his conduct
      in public serv;~~· J.~~E!'.'!IY. !.ele~v.~nto!>je.ci gf punishment
      in such cases is denunciation and deterrence. That is
    B the reason'.the'.Parlfament has'rrestricted1the judicial
      discretion in imposing punishment. [Para 20) [588-F-G]
                 .                        GI Li>. , \l) J li'1 '-li-\

            ' 1.~HrHP~:'~p,l_tie1,.c;~~:ffl~ ~'(1,~,d...;-f'~f.rp.priately
      deterrent pumshm~pt ,ta1<1~gl n~,te,o( the nature of the
    C offence,under thJ'Pre.Jelltion"of'ccRruption Act, 1988
      a~np .t!!~-s~tu~¥of th~ Pl,l~!i.<; .~~cy,arrt_at_~e,.rn!e,•0!11t time,
      PJ!c;>P!l!l. ~!J!JoseJiilUJ Ln... ~~jµs_!ieflt<i.~li~e.ry:_syst~in Pf!4
          tl]i;.__x~1Y 1.cipje,p~,qktbe.i,legi~!a.tl0.1J1,on,.pre_ve1J!ic;>Jb!?!

    0 gpn:upJi.91!1V'"~~l.~"-:P-e, cde.fl!,l!Je,(j_,ril:!t~1,C"o_u,rta!s.otfl.~
       ~!?!15..P.\e,rtlf~ ,gf1~l).e.J\!?taJ~tec~mt h~n9~ 1 zi~,.ju,dg!!J~IJ~
       S.1:19.~lq (pr,oJe~cJJ.~JlP.;P!P!'\9~,~)!!le.: P.c;>.!ify 1!.i.IJIS. :--0.!
       P,~ ~\S,~!11_e!}t, (le,S.' ·!tS. fl.0_4 !~ cS ~lt.!<e.., ~!1e. f~!!h.J9t<;~11Jffi~!',
       ~~J!,jn.<;o.!lJ!si\[~~ lu~~IJ1e,!!\R~Se~!~"19e,,siia!! re.,~!lop!s
    i= t.h!!. C911!,ll!c;>fl m~.IJ J! sl_lqµl!f i:~!l~cJJhe,,p1:1!? I\g <! !:l!J~rre,~c.~
       c;>f, t_h_e :~r.i'!! ~.~,TJ1~ c;qurt !};a~ !1!1!5-•) a..,~ I! ty, !C?. ·.P.~o~~.C::! ;~ti.<!
       promo~~ P!J~llc1 !nte~e~J-~ u~t~l!ilc;I, ,l,IP, PL\l?l.ic:: c;:_o_nJi~!trtC::~
       i,p.:~fflca,cy -et\n!te1,qt!."!Wf10Ml~P.l.ac;:,~,d\sy_OJP.~!!1Y~··9[\
       l!OV'_Cl!fil!lt~~l)~-!1\engy, Wil!J~ei:i<! 1~ Wr9!'19 ·,§!g~J J?,; ~!1~
    Fi PllJ?li«; 9l"!LIJ9JO,Offi,~O ~U~Pll.<?t ~h~J!l~tjt\,IJiO!)~ljQ!egr~,ty,,_
       ~ftei:;,ting rilt_e~~r.e.~JbiU!Y(.of..,,jts.ic'{~r.dlc~; .T!°)!.!~•s'!Y.~i!ll~
       aY{C!r~ing ~!lt;i!EJJI~~. ir~tc_as_eJ .ll!)qeJ ,tf!~ .PS;A,c!tJ!1!3..;!;l?,L\ '1.
       shou_ld b!3!![ ill .Jl!i.n}iJ.tl_e,e/(pe9ta~!1?,n~c;>tt!l~. pepp!!3~~                  Its.
    G p;irarp~µ_Qt ~L\ty.i~93' PillV,ell~j ~()r_rup_~ipf! 1i.tl, ,S,l?,~L~ty1~Y.
          providing prompt conviction and stern sente_r.c;:.~··Ce~r.a,
          21) [589-8-FJ                                 '.
                                    huo:> cdt ,lssqq~; crt:i_gn~:::u~m-~iG
              1.3 Appellant was the sub-inspector of police
          erifrusted'with'tlfe-task'of 1aw·eii'forcement:'The 'keeper
    H

L
 SHANTI LAL MEENA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, CBI 581


had become the poacher. In such circumstances, there A
is no reason to interfere with the punishment awarded
by the trial court and was upheld in appeal. [Para 22]
[589-F-G]

    Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of              B
    Maharashtra 2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 475: 2000 (8)
    SCC 571; Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v.
    state ofW.B. 1994(1) SCR 37: 1994(2) sec 220;
    Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed and
    another v. State of Gujarat 2009 (8)               c
    SCR 719: 2009 (7) SCC 254; State of Madhya
    Pradesh v. Bablu 2014 (9) SCC 281; State of
    Punjab v. Bawa Singh 2015 (1) SCR 709; Mahesh
    slo Ram Narain and others v. State of Madhya
                                                       D
    Pradesh 1987 (2) SCR 710:1987 (3) SCC 80;
    Ravi alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan
    1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 195: 1996 (2)
    SCC 175; Shai/esh Jasvantbhai and another v.
    State of Gujarat and others 2006 (1)               E
    SCR 477: 2006 (2) SCC 359; Hazara Singh v.
    Raj Kumar and others 2013 (5) SCR 979: 2013
    (9) sec 516- referred to.

                   Case Law Reference                  F
2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 475       Referred to.   Para 11
1994 (1) SCR 37               Referred to.   Para 12
2009 (8) SCR 719              Referred to.   Para 13
2014 (9) sec 281              Referred to.   Para 14   G
2015 (1) SCR 709              Referred to.   Para 15
1987 (2) SCR 710              Referred to.   Para 16
1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 195       Referred to.   Para 17
2006 (1) SCR 477              Referred to.   Para 18   H
582          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2015] 3 S.C.R.


/\    2013 (5) SCR 979                       Referred to.           Para 19
           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTllON : Criminal
     Appeal No. 585 of 2015

           From the Judgment and Order dated 17 .07.2014 of the
B    High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 326
     of2008

            Sushi! Kumar Jain, Yadav Nare.mder Singh for the
     Appellant.
c
            Ranjit Kumar, S. G., Kumar Parima1I, Rana Mukherjee,
     B. V. Balaram Das for the Respondent.

             The Judgment of the Court was de'livered by
D
             KURIAN, J.: Leave granted.

             2. The appeal has called for an analysis of the
     penological philosophy behind puni1shment for offences under
     the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1H88 (hereinafter referred to
E    as 'the PC Act'). According to W. Friedmann, "The purpose of
     the penal law is to express a formal social condemnation of
     forbidden conduct, buttressed by sanctions calculated to
     prevent it. Implicit in this formulation are three questions, to
F    which different societies give very different answers: First, what
     kind of conduct is 'forbidden'? Second, what kind of 'formal
     social condemnation' is considered appropriate to prevent
     such conduct? Third, what kind of sanctions are considered
     as best calculated to prevent officially outlawed conduct?" 1
G
            3. By judgment dated 29.03.2008 of the learned Special
     Judge (CBI}, Delhi in CC No. 194/2001, the appellant was
     convicted for the offences under Section 7 and 13(2) read with

     1 "Law in Changing Society, W. Friedmann, 2nd Edition, P.191
H
 SHANTI LAL MEENA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, CBI                    583
                 [KURIAN, J.]

 Section 13( 1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and    A
 thereafter sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment for
 the offence under Section 7 with a fine of Rs.15,000/- and
·rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.15,000/
 - under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1 )(d) of the PC
 Act. There was a default sentence as well. The sentences were      B
 to run concurrently.

        4. The allegation was that the appellant, who was
working as Sub-Inspector of Police, demanded a bribe of
Rs.25,000/- for releasing the nephew of the de-facto C
complainant. On such complaint of PW-5, the Anti-Corruption
Branch of the CBI laid a successful trap on 13.01.2001 which
led to the trial.

        5. In appeal, the High Court of Delhi found that the D
conviction was fully justified. It was further held that "as regards
the sentence, the Appellant was a Sub Inspector and
entrusted with the task of law enforcement. In the
circumstances, the punishment awarded by the trial Court
cannot be said to be disproportionate. The sentence awarded E
to the Appellant by the trial Court is upheld', and hence the
appeal.

        6. Notice in the present case was limited to the quantum
of sentence only. Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned Senior F
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. It is submitted
that in view of the ordeal of a long trial and taking note of the
factthatthe incident is of the year 2001, the punishment may
be limited to the period already undergone. Shri Ranjit Kumar, G
learned Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the
respondent, on the other hand submitted that since the
appellant was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe in
the case at the investigation stage and stressed on the fact
that since the appellant was Sub-Inspector of Police at the H
584          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 3 S.C.R.



A     relevant time, ifthe punishment is reduced, it will give a wrong .
      signal to the society.

              7. In determining the quantum of sentence, the kind of
      forbidden conduct, the kind of social condemnation, the
B     sanction prescribed in law, the object of punishment, the nature
      of crime, the status of the criminal, etc., are some of the relevant
      factors to be considered by the courts.

          8. The Prevention of Corruption Act was first introduced
c in the year 1947 when "imperative need was felt to introduce a
  special legislation with a view to eradicate the evils of bribery
  and corruption". It was subsequently amended in 1952 and
  1964. "To make the anti-corruption laws more effective by
  widening their coverage and by strengthening the provisions",
D the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was enacted. The Act
  was amended in the year 2014.

          9. A few special legislations provide for mandatory
  minimum punishments and the Prevention of Corruption Act is
E one such statute. Prior to the amendment in 2014, the offence
  under Section 7, the mandatory minimum punishment was six
  months which may be extended up to five years with fine.
  Section 13 of the PC Act provided for a mandatory punishment
  of minimum one year which may be extended to seven years
F with fine. Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947,
  which is the predecessor to Section 13 of the Prevention of
                                                  a
  Corruption Act, 1988, granted the court further discretion to
  reduce the sentence to less than one year.for special reasons
G to be recorded in writing. However, in the PC Act, 1988, this
  discretion given to the court, was taken away. Vide 2014
  amendment, the minimum sentence under Section 7 of the
  PC Act was raised to three years and the maximum to seven
  years and that under Section 13 of the PC Act, it was raised
H from one year to four years and maximum to ten years and
 SHANTI LAL MEENA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, CBI                     585
                 [KURIAN, J.]

fine.                                                                A

       10. The punishments under Sections 8, 9, 10, 11 of the
PC Act, 1988 were minimum six months extendable to five
years with fine and under Section 14 of the Act, it was minimum
two years extendable to seven years and fine. However, 1988 B
Act, as it originally stood, did not provide for mandatory
minimum punishment under Section 15-for an attempt to
commit an offence under Section 13. Nor did the Act of 1947
provide for a mandatory minimum punishment for the said
offence. However, in the 2014 amendment, a mandatory C
minimum punishment of two years, which may be extended to
five years and fine, has been prescribed as punishment for
attempt under Section 15.

         11. An analysis of the provisions on punishment under       D
the PC Act would give a clear indication on the penal philosophy
of deterrence conceived by the Parliament. Though no
authentic reference is available as to what prompted the law
maker to take away the discretion conferred on the court to
reduce the minimum punishment and in enhancing the minimum           E
punishment, it is fairly clear that the Parliament intended to
restrict the discretion of the courts while imposing the sentence
for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the words
of Justice K. T. Thomas in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v.              F
 State of Maharashtra 2 - "When corruption was sought to be
eliminated from the polity all possible stringent measures
are to be adopted within the bounds of law. One such measure
is to provide condign punishment. Parliament measured the
parameters for such condign punishment and in that process G
wanted to fix a minimum sentence of imprisonment forgiving
deterrent impact on other public servants who are prone to
corrupt deals. That was precisely the reason why the sentence
2 (2000) 8 SCC 571, Paragraph-8.
                                                                     H
586        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2015) 3 S.C.R.



A  was fixed as 7 years and directed that even if the said period
   of imprisonment need not be given the sentence shall not
  be less than the imprisonment for one year. Such a legislative
  insistence is reflection of Parliament's resolve to meet
  corruption cases with a very strong hand and to give signals
B of deterrence as the most pivotal feature of sentencing of
  corrupt public servants. All public servants were warned
  through such a legislative measure that corrupt public
  servants have.to face very serious consequences. If on the
C other hand any public servant is given the impression that if
  he succeeds in protracting the proceedings that would help
  him to have the advantage of getting a very light sentence
  even if the case ends in conviction, we are afraid its fallout
  would afford incentive to public servants who are susceptible
o to corruption to indulge in such nefarious practices with
  immunity. Increasing the fine after reducing the imprisonment
  to a nominal period can also defeat the purpose as the corrupt
  public servant could easily raise the fine amount through the
  same means."
E
          12. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State
  ofW.B. 3 , this Court held at paragraph-15 that "Imposition of
  appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts
  respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals.
F Justice demands that courts should impose punishment
  befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence
  of the crime."

          13. In Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed and
G another v. State of Gujarat\ at paragraph-99, this Court
  reiterated the position in the following words "It is expected
  that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to
  impose such sentence whichref/ects the conscience of the
H   3 (1994) 2 sec 220
    4 (2009) 1 sec 254
 SHANTI LAL MEENA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, CBI 587
                 [l:<URIAN, J.]
                           \
society and the sentencing process has to be stem where it A
should be. Any liberal' attitude by imposing mf}agre
sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account
of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be resultwise
counterproductive in the long run and against the interest of
society which needs to be · cared for and strengthened by B
string of deterrence inbuilt il'l the sentencing system. n

       14. In a recent decisic\n in State of Madhya Pradesh
v. Bablu 5 , it was.held as follows:
                                                                   c
       "10. It is well-settled proposition of law that one of
     · the prime objectives of cr,imina/ law is the imposition
      of adequate, just, propor.tionate punishment which
      is commensurate with' thi;i gravity and nature of the
      crime and manner in which· the offence is committed.         D
      One should keep in mine} the social interest and
      consciousness of the society While considering the
      determinative factor of sentence commensurate with
      the gravity and nature of crime. The punishment
      should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience       E
      of the society. It is, therefore, ti'Je solemn duty of the
      court to strike a proper balance while awarding
      sentence as awarding a lesser sentence encourages
      any criminal and as a result of the same society             F
      suffers."

         15. After extensively referring to the objects of
punishment in State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh6, at paragraph-
17, this Court held that "undue sympathy to impose G
inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice
system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of
law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence .. .".

s (2014) 9 sec 2s1
6 (2015) 1 S.C.R. 709
                                                                   H
588        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 3 S.C.R.

A          16. In Mahesh slo Ram Narain and others v. State
  of Madhya Pradesh 7 , while referring to the cruel acts of the
  convicted accused, this Court observed that "to give the lesser
  punishment for the appellants would be to render the justice
  system of this country suspect. The common man will lose
B faith in courts. In such cases, he understands and appreciates
  the language of deterrence more than the reformative jargon".

        17. In Ravi alias Ram Chandra v. State of
  Rajasthan 8 , this Court held that the sentence should reflect
C the social conscience of society and that the sentencing
  process has to be stern, where it should be.

         18. In Shailesh Jasvantbhai and another v. State
  of Gujarat and others 9 , at paragraph-?, it was held that
D "protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity
  must be the object which must be achieved by imposing
  appropriate sentence".
                                                             "
  19. In Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar and others• 0 , this Court
E took the view that ... "the cardinal principle of sentencing
  policy is that the sentence imposed on an offendershould
  reflect the crime he has committed and it should be
  proportionate to the gravity of the offence."

F 20. As far as punishment for offences under the PC Act is
  concerned, we do not think that there is any serious scope for
  reforming the convicted public servant. The moment he is
  convicted, he loses his job. Hence, there is no significance to
  the theory of reformation of his conduct in public service. The
G only relevant object of punishment in such cases is denunciation
  and deterrence. That is the reason the Parliament has restricted
  the judicial discretion in imposing punishment.
           •
H   7 (1987) 3 sec 80
    8 (1996) 2 sec 175
    9 (2006) 2 sec 359
    10 c2013) 9 sec 516
 SHANTI LAL MEENA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, CBI 589
                 [KURIAN, J.]

        21. To quote Friedmann, "General/y, the philosophy of              A
deterrence still prevails in modem criminology. We continue
to be concerned with preventing, by appropriate punitive
sanctions, both the individual offender and other members
of society from the repetition of crime, or the imitation on the
part of others by similar actions" 11 • Unless the courts award            B
appropriately deterrent punishment taking note of the nature
of the offence under the PC Act and the status of the public
servant at the relevant time, people will lose faith in the justice
delivery system and the very object of the legislation on                  C
prevention of corruption will be defeated. The court is the
conscience of the statute and hence its judgments should
project and promote the policy aims of punishment, lest it should
shake the faith of common man in courts. The judgment on
sentence shall not shock the common man. It should reflect                 D
the public abhorrence of the crime. The court has thus a duty
to protect and promote public interest and build up public
confidence in efficacy of rule of law. Misplaced sympathy or
unwarranted leniency will send a wrong signal to the public
giving room to suspect the institutional integrity, affecting the          E
credibility of its verdict. Thus, while awarding sentence in cases
underthe PC Act, the court should bear in mind the expectation
of the people of its paramount duty to prevent corruption in
society by providing prompt conviction and stern sentence.
                                                                           F
        22. As noticed by the High Court in the impugned
judgment itself, the appellant was the sub-inspector of police
entrusted with the task of law enforcement. The keeper had
become the poacher. In such circumstances, we do not find
any reason to interfere with the punishment awarded by the G
trial court and confirmed in appeal. This appeal is hence
dismissed.

Nidhi Jain                                             Appeal dismissed.
                                                                           H
11 "Law in Changing Society. W. Friedmann, 2nd Edition, P.224.