2025 INSC 1014 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1716 OF 2011

K. POUNAMMAL ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE REPRESENTED BY

INSPECTOR OF POLICE ….Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Heard learned counsel Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy for the

appellant and learned counsel Mr. Mukesh Kumar

Maroria for the respondent-State.

2. This criminal appeal by the appellant-convict is

directed against judgment and order dated 4

th

August,

2010 of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in

Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2003, whereby the High

Court confirmed judgment and order delivered by the

Page 1 of 13

Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (for short

“CBI”), Madurai in Criminal Case No. 2 of 2003 dated 5

th

November, 2003, convicting the appellant for the offences

under Section 7, Section 13(2) read section 13(1)(d) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing

her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and

with fine of ₹1000/- with default clause in respect of the

offence under Section 7, to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for one year and with fine of ₹ 1000/- with

default clause for the offence under Section 13(2) read

with Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act.

3. The appellant had been serving as an Inspector of

Central Excise. The complainant (PW-2) who was a

supervisor at Parani Match Factory at Sengamalapatti of

Sivakasi Taluka, made an application for grant of fresh

central excise registration certificate for its factory. The

application was to be dealt within the Thiruthangal – II

Range which was under the jurisdiction of the appellant-

accused. It was the case of the prosecution that on

16.09.2002 the appellant demanded illegal gratification

Page 2 of 13

of a sum of ₹300/-. The complainant did not pay the

bribe amount although was pressurised and threatened.

For want of payment of said amount by the complainant,

delayed release of the certificate. It led to lodging of the

complaint on 21.09.2002.

3.1 The Competent Authority – Commissioner of

Central Excise and Customs (PW-1), Thiruthangal – II

Range granted sanction to prosecute the appellant on

26.03.2003. The charge-sheet came to be filed on

07.05.2003. At the end of the trial, Special Judge, CBI

convicted and sentenced the appellant as above, which

was upheld by the High Court.

3.2 While recording the conviction and sentence

against the appellant, the trial court as well as the High

Court concurrently held that the essential elements of

demand and payment were proved against the appellant

to constitute and establish the offence under the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. From the depositions

of the complainant (PW-2), accused (PW-3), and the

Officer (PW-4) as well as from documentary evidence [Ex.

Page 3 of 13

P-2 and P-4], the offence was established. The brother of

the complainant (PW-3) saw the accused accepting

₹300/- under the file. It was recorded that the

information regarding the demand made by the accused

was conveyed to the CBI office at Chennai.

3.3 The aspect of result of sodium carbonate

phenolphthalein test was also noticed and it was a clear

finding recorded that when the sodium carbonate test

was conducted on the right and left hands of the

appellant-accused, the result was positive. When the

accused was asked to dip her hands, it turned into pink

colour. The defence case of non-probability of accused

having demanded the money was not accepted in light of

the outweighing evidence in that regard. The High Court

endorsed to the view taken by the trial court.

4. In course of hearing today, learned advocate for

the appellant stated before the Court upon instructions

from the appellant that he gives up the challenge to the

conviction recorded against the appellant and that

confines the appeal in respect of the sentence part only.

Page 4 of 13

He requested the court for reduction of the sentence to

further submit that the period of sentence already

undergone may be treated as adequate sentence while

maintaining the conviction. He submitted that the

complaint was filed as back as on 23.09.2002 and 23

years have passed by since the occurrence of the incident

where appellant-lady was alleged to have asked for the

illegal gratification of ₹300/-.

5. In M.W. Mohiuddin vs. State of Maharashtra,

[(1995) 3 SCC 567] this Court maintained the conviction

of the appellant for the offences under Section 13(1)(d)

read with Section 13(2) and Section 7 of the Prevention

of Corruption Act, however in the final analysis, reduced

the sentence noticing that the offence had taken place in

the year 1981. The Court observed,

“….. All these years the appellant has

undergone the agony of criminal

proceedings uptil now and he has also

lost his job and has a large family to

support. It is also stated that he has

become sick and infirm. He has been

in jail for some time. For all these

special reasons, while confirming the

conviction of the appellant, we reduce

Page 5 of 13

the sentence of imprisonment to the

period already undergone. However, we

confirm the sentence of fine with

default clause…..” (Para 10)

5.1 Similarly, in Bechaarbhai S. Prajapati v. State of

Gujarat, [(2008) 11 SCC 163] it was a Police Sub-

Inspector who demanded money for allowing a luxury

bus carrying marriage party to go to the destination. In

that case also, both the trial court and the High Court

held that the demand and acceptance of bribe money

were proved and the tainted currency notes were

recovered from the appellant. However, the alternative

submissions on behalf of the appellant was accepted by

the court that the sentence would operate harsh as the

occurrence took place nearly 7 years back. Noticing that

the appellant had suffered custody for more than six

months and taking into account all the other relevant

aspects, the Court took the view that justice would be

best served if the sentence was reduced to the period

already undergone, while maintaining the conviction. The

appeal was accordingly dismissed by modifying the

sentence.

Page 6 of 13

5.2 Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall vs. State of Gujarat,

[(2015) 15 SCC 506] is yet another precedent. This

Court in the facts of the case before it reduced the

substantive sentence and enhanced the fine or

compensation. While doing so, following pertinent

observations were made,

“The incident, in question, took place

as back as on 29-6-1987. Almost 27

years have passed by. All these years,

the appellants must have suffered

tremendous mental trauma and

anguish. The appellants have lost their

jobs and all retiral benefits. The

appellant Jujarsinh is, as of today,

about 76 years old. We are informed by

the learned counsel for the appellant

Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall that

Gulmahmad is suffering from gangrene

and has undergone surgery. Both the

appellants are in jail. We are informed

by the learned counsel for the

appellants that the appellants have

undergone about more than two

months' imprisonment.”

(Para 5)

5.3 This Court has been consistent in approaching

and dealing with the cases where the sentence already

undergone by the convict is treated to be adequate

Page 7 of 13

sentence for variety of mitigating factors and

circumstances operating in the case.

5.4 The accused in B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Admn.

[(1974) 3 SCC 85], was convicted for the offence under

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court

observed that the main purpose of the sentence, broadly

stated, is that the accused must realise that he has

committed an act which is harmful not only to the society

of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to

his own future, both as an individual and as a member of

the society. It is the design to protect the society by

deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the

guilty party from repeating the offence. It was stated that

reformatory aspect is also relevant and the offender

should be reclaimed as law abiding citizen.

5.5 In Dologovinda Mohanty vs. State of Orissa

[(1979) 4 SCC 557], this Court took into account of

₹138/- alleged to have been received by accused as illegal

gratification, while confirming the conviction to reduce

the sentence. In the same way, in State of Maharashtra

Page 8 of 13

v. Rashid B. Mulani [(2006) 1 SCC 407] the accused

had obtained illegal gratification to the tune of ₹300/- in

the capacity of Talathi. The said incident had occurred

before 19 years and the case was pending since long

before the Special Judge. This Court reduced the

sentence.

5.6 In K.P. Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2015)

15 SCC 497] it was observed by the Court that the

quantum of sentence to be awarded would depends upon

a variety of factors including the mitigating

circumstances in a given case. It was stated that in doing

so the courts are influenced in varying degree, and adopt

reformative, deterrent and punitive approach.

5.6.1 It was observed thus,

“…..delay in the conclusion of the trial

and legal proceedings, the age of the

accused, his physical/health

condition, the nature of the offence,

the weapon used and in the cases of

illegal gratification the amount of

bribe, loss of job and family obligations

of the accused are also some of the

considerations that weigh heavily with

the courts while determining the

Page 9 of 13

sentence to be awarded…..” (Para

10)

6. The conviction and sentence have their respective

realms. While the conviction would be recorded on the

basis of evidence adduced before the Court which would

establish the implication of the accused in the offence,

the guilty person or the convicted when to be awarded a

sentence, a host of factors would operate to govern.

6.1 In determining the final sentence and the nature

thereof, variety of factors that would operate would

include the intervening time between the commission of

offence and the actual award of the sentence, age of the

accused, the stress which he or she might have suffered

because of passage of time during each case has

remained pending and undecided, the family

circumstance and such other factors, without becoming

exhaustive.

7. The process of sentencing by the courts is guided

by theories such as punitive, deterrent or reformative.

Each school of thought has its own object and purpose to

Page 10 of 13

explain awarding of sentence and its utility. Amongst

these theories, reformative approach has become

increasingly acceptable to the modern jurisprudence.

Reformation is something always considered progressive.

When there are mitigating circumstances, the court

would lean towards reducing of the sentence. The focus

would be on the crime, and not on the criminal. The

society and system would nurture the guilt with

positivity, while selecting the sentence.

8. In light of the above principles guiding the

sentencing process, the submission of learned advocate

for the appellant could be countenanced that in the case

on hand the incident had taken place on 23.09.2002.

Since then, more than two decades have passed by. The

appellant underwent imprisonment for 31 days. The

appellant is a widow lady. It was stated that she is now

75 years of age. The appellant has been staying alone, the

husband having died, stated her learned counsel. She

belongs to scheduled caste and has been spending her life

negotiating all hardships.

Page 11 of 13

9. The prolongation of a criminal case for an

unreasonable period is in itself a kind of suffering. It

amounts to mental incarceration for the person facing

such proceedings. For a person who is convicted and

who has appealed against his or her conviction and

sentence and who everyday awaits the fate of litigation,

spends time in distress. In the present-day system of

administration of justice, in which proceedings have often

go on protracted unreasonably and therefore unbearably,

the passage of long time itself makes the person suffer a

mental agony.

10. The aspects in the present case as highlighted

above that the incident had occurred more than 22 years

ago and that the age of the widow appellant is 75 years

who stays alone, the Court finds it appropriate that she

may not be made to undergo the imprisonment again. In

the totality of the facts and circumstances, the

imprisonment already undergone by her is treated to be

adequate sentence.

Page 12 of 13

10.1The sentence awarded to the appellant is

accordingly reduced to the actual undergone. At the same

time the imposition of fine is required to be increased.

The appellant shall be liable to pay fine of ₹25,000/- over

and above originally imposed. The amount of fine shall be

paid on or before 10

th

September, 2025.

11. The appeal is thus dismissed of by confirming the

conviction of the appellant, however by modifying the

sentence which is awarded as above. It is provided that if

the appellant fails to pay the amount of fine as directed

above within the stipulated time, the original order of

sentence shall revive and operate rendering the appellant

liable to surrender before the authorities concerned.

....…………………………….. J.

N.V. ANJARIA

…..…………………………….. J.

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR

NEW DELHI;

August 21, 2025

Page 13 of 13