VISHNU NAGNATH DESHMUKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

A                      VISHNU NAGNATH DESHMUKH
                                         v.
                          ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA

                              NOVEMBER 8, 2000

B          [UMESH C. BANERJEE AND K.G .. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.]


          Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 : Sections 5(J)(d) and 5(2).

         Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Section 161.
c
          Prevention of Corruption-Illegal gratification-Conviction for-
    Sentencing-Appellant-Accused-Acceptance of illega( gratification by-
    Finding of Trial Judge-Upheld by High Court-Conviction-Imprisonment
    ofsix months-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held no interference was
D   called for with fact finding-In view of smallness of amount involved sentence
    imposed on the accused reduced to the period already undergone by him.

         Criminal trial-Accused-Sentence-Punishment-Purpose of

         E.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration, [1974) 1 SCR 222, relied on.

E        Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136

          Appeal-Examination of evidence by Supreme Court-Permissibility
    of-Held Supreme Court does not examine the evidence for itself except when
    the interest of justice so requires.

F         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1127
    of 1995.

           From the Judgment and Order dated 13.4.93 of the Bombay High Court
    in Crl. A. No. 799 of 1986.

G        V.N. Ganpule and K. Sarada Devi (A.C.) for the Appellant.

         I.G. Shah, S.S. Shinde and S.V. Deshpande for the Respondent.

         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         The appellant in this appeal by grant of special leave challenges the
H
                                        462
                         VISHNU NAGNATH DESHMUKH v. ST ATE                            463
         judgment and order dated 13 .4.1993 passed by the learned single Judge of the        A
          Bombay High Court upholding on appeal the appellant's conviction under
          section 5(2) read with section 5(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 194 7
 -•       and under section 161 lPC. The Special Judge, Solapur, in Case No. 4/1986
        · convicted the appellant with rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine
          of Rs. I 00 and in default of payment of fine the appellant to undergo further      B
          rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.
-....
               The subject-matter of the appeal pertains to illegal gratification of Rs.
        10. The learned advocate appearing in support of the appeal took us in great
        detail to the evidence tendered and contended that question of there being
        any corruption involved does not arise since the Tahsildar himself has allowed        C
        the appellant to retain a book for collection of money for soldiers welfare
        fund. Payment of Rs. 10 thus stands admitted. The dispute being whereas the
        appellant is contending that the same was collected at the instance of the
        Tahsildar on account of soldiers welfare fund, the prosecution harped upon
        illegal gratification. The record depicts that PW2 Yunus went to the office of
        the Tahsi\dar on 8.1.1986 and gave an application for issuance of necessary           D
        succession certificate and it is the accused who is said to have informed
        Yunus (PW2) that the application would be sent for inquiry but one can get
        a certificate only upon payment of certificate fees and in that case fees was
        prescribed at Rs. IO and it is on this score that a complaint was lodged with
        the Anti-Corruption Department and the usual formalities regarding these              E
        matters were duly complied with. Before we proceed further in the matter we
        ought to appreciate that this Court does not examine the evidence for itself
        in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution except when the interest of
        justice so requires. In the instant case the facts have been gone in detail by
        both the Special Judge as also by the learned single Judge of the High Court
        in appeal. The question of any intervention on the factual situation at this          F
        stage of the proceedings is not warranted. On the factual aspect also and
        having due regard to the evidence, we also cannot come as a matter of fact
        to a different conclusion than what has been arrived at, except however on
        the question of sentence. The learned advocate appearing in support of the
        appeal in the alternative submitted that by reason of the smailness of the            G
        amount involved and by reason of the factum that the appellant being in jail
        for a period of four months, the question of further punishment would not
        arise in the factual context and submitted that the appellant has enough
        sufferings already by reason of the long lapse of time during the pendency
        of the proceedings and interest of justice would be sub-served in having the
        punishment for the period already undergone. In support of the alternative            H ·
    464                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 4 S.C:.R.

A submission strong reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in B.G.
    Goswami v. Delhi Administration, [ 1974] I SCR 222 wherein this Court recorded
    that the purpose of sentence is that the accused must realise that he has
    committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he form.s
    an integral part but is also harmful to his own future both as an individual
B   and as a member of the society. This Court thereafter observed :-

                  "Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential
             offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the
             offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and re-claim him as
             a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole.
             Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play
c            their due part in judicial thinking while determining this question. In
             modern civilized societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given
             somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh
             sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the
             other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal.
D            In the present case, after weighing the consideration already noticed
             by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to jail now after
             7 years of the agony and harassment of these proceedings when he
             is also going to lose his job and to earn a living for himself and for
             his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it ·
             would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of
E            imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of
             fine from Rs. 200 to Rs. 400. Period of imprisonment in case of default
             will remain the same."

           On the wake of the observations above, we also do feel it inclined to
F   a_ccept the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that the interest of
    justice would be met if we reduce the imprisonment to that already undergone
     by reason of the smallness of the amount involved. We take it on record that
    the amount of fine has already been paid and as such we do not wish to
    enhance the amount either. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of
    the appeal has stated that the appellant has undergone four month sentence.
G   The appeal thus stands accepted in part and disposed of in terms of the
    above.

    T.N.A.                                                   Appeal disposed of.