Case Law Details
Held – Where the minimum sentence is provided, we think it would not be at all appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to reduce the sentence on the ground of the so-called mitigating factors as that would tantamount to supplanting statutory mandate and further it would amount to ignoring the substantive statutory provision that prescribes minimum sentence for a criminal act relating to demand and acceptance of bribe. The amount may be small but to curb and repress this kind of proclivity the legislature has prescribed the minimum sentence. It should be paramountly borne in mind that corruption at any level does not deserve either sympathy or leniency. In fact, reduction of the sentence would be adding a premium. The law does not so countenance and, rightly so, because corruption corrodes the spine of a nation and in the ultimate eventuality makes the economy sterile.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Dr. B. S. Chauhan and Dipak Misra, JJ.
May 29, 2012
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Judiciary should punish both the giver and taker of money. A very good Judgement. should remembered by ALL.
CA.Subhash Chandra Podder , FCA
Kolkata
31/05/2012