STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. K.R. KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are by the State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor for enhancement of the sentence meted out to the accused who was convicted by the learned III Additional Special Judge, Madras. Division, in three cases, of offences under Sec. 5(1)(c) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court for those offences. It was on his own admission and plea that the accused was convicted as aforesaid by the learned Judge, who has accepted his plea of guilt.

(2.) The learned Public Prosecutor contends that considering the circumstances of the case the sentences meted out to the accused are extremely lenient and are actually not warranted. I am in entire agreement with the learned Public Prosecutor. For an offence under Sec. 5(1)(c) read with Sec. 2(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the minimum sentence prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for one year. The proviso to that Sec. says that the Court may, for any special reasons recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year. In this case the reasons given by the learned Special Judge for the very lenient sentence which he meted out to the accused are that the accused has paid back to the bank the entire sum of Rs. 1,50,683 misappropriated by him even long before the charge -sheet was filed and had readily admitted the offences and deeply lamented for the same; and further the accused was aged about 41 years and would also lose his job. But then, considering the circumstances of the case, I do not think that these reasons would validly support such a lenient punishment as has been meted out to the accused.

(3.) The Supreme Court has in B.C. Goswami v/s. Delhi Administration : 1974 CriLJ 243, observed as follows: