Skip to content


Harbans Singh Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1481 of 1984
Judge
Reported in1984(2)SCALE78a; (1984)4SCC1; [1985]1SCR214
ActsPrevention of Corruption Act - Sections 5(2)
AppellantHarbans Singh
RespondentState of Punjab
Advocates: Harbans Lal and; Balmokand Goyal,;Advs
Cases ReferredIn Meet Singh v. State of Punjab
Prior historyFrom the Judgment and Order dated January 23, 1984 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 45 of 1983--
Excerpt:
- section 25: [dr. arijit pasayat, dr. mukundakam sharma & h.l. dattu, jj] transfer of cases petition by wife parties, husband and wife appearing before lok adalt settlement reached between parties parties agreed that they want divorce by mutual consent and also agreed not to proceed in pending criminal and civil disputes - petition disposed of in terms of settlement. direction to grant divorce by mutual consent issued. .....we make this short speaking order in order to keep the record straight that the dismissal of the special leave petition does not tantamount to affirmance of the order of the learned judge of the high court who for reasons utterly untenable interfered with teh sentence imposed by the trial court and reduced it to sentence already undergone which in the facts and circumstances of the case was wholly impermissible.2. in meet singh v. state of punjab, : 1980crilj802 this court pointed out that section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act prescribes a minimum sentence and discretion is conferred on the court to give less than the minimum for any special reasons to be recorded in writing. this court examined what constitute special reasons for the purpose of section 5(2) and pointed out.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Desai, J.

1. We are not inclined to grant special leave, but we make this short speaking order in order to keep the record straight that the dismissal of the special leave petition does not tantamount to affirmance of the order of the learned Judge of the High Court who for reasons utterly untenable interfered with teh sentence imposed by the trial court and reduced it to sentence already undergone which in the facts and circumstances of the case was wholly impermissible.

2. In Meet Singh v. State of Punjab, : 1980CriLJ802 this Court pointed out that Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act prescribes a minimum sentence and discretion is conferred on the court to give less than the minimum for any special reasons to be recorded in writing. This Court examined what constitute special reasons for the purpose of Section 5(2) and pointed out that the reasons which weighed with the learned Judge in reducing the sentence to the sentence undergone could not be special reasons. Therefore, in our view, the learned Judge was entirely in error in showing a misplaced sympathy unsustainable in law. With these observations we reject the special leave petition.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //