MURARI LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision was admitted on the question of sentence. The prosecution case in brief, was that on April 10, 1974 tha accused who was an employee of the Railway came out of the NSD when he was checked as he was suspected to be carrying with him some Railway property. On search being made he was found to be in possession of a baring brass piece weighing 3,250 Kg. and mea suring 7" x 4". It was found concealed under the Langot underneath trousers. The property was identified to be the Railway property and the circumstances in which it was recovered from the applicant proved that he was in possession of the Railway property unlawfully. Section_3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, provides for penalty for unlawful possession of railway property. The possession is punishable- (a) for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which my extend to five years, or with fine, or with both and in the ab sence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees.

(2.) THE courts below have already awarded the minimum sentence of im prisonment. Lerned counsel contended that tnere were special and adequate reasons for reducing the sentence below the minimum. The reasons according to him are: (1) that the applicant will lose his em ployment, and (2) that he has a large family to support. In my opi nion neitner of these two can be regarded as providing a special and adequate reason for awarding a sentence below the minimum. The applicant's chance of having to face adverse consequences in his em ployment can be no reason for the award to him of a sentence below the minimum. Being an employee of the railway administration he was expected to show better sense of integrity. Special and adequate reason must relate to circumstances in which the onence was com mitted, i.e., the circumstances in which the property came into the possession of the accused or the compelling forces which led him to obtain or possess the property; the special and adequate reasons may also be reiatable to the age or health of the accused. But the matters which have nexus neither to the circumstances leading to the commis sion of the offence nor to the personality of the committer of the of fence, can provide no ground for awarding a sentence below the mini mum prescribed by law. The supporting of a family is nothing spe cial in the case of the accused and cannot therefore, provide a special reason for reducing the sentence. The maintenance of family is the liability and responsibility of every individual wno is the earning member.