S. Sundara Kumar vs State Represented By The … on 13 January, 2021

caselaws.org

Supreme Court of India
S. Sundara Kumar vs State Represented By The … on 13 January, 2021Author: Ashok Bhushan

Bench: Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M.R. Shah

NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021
(Arising from SLP(Criminal) No.5832/2019)

S.Sundara Kumar …Appellant

Versus

State Represented by
The Inspector of Police, Vigilance
And Anti­Corruption, Thoothukudi District,
Tamil Nadu …Respondent

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 23.11.2018 passed by the Madurai

Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 357

of 2008, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal

preferred by the appellant herein – original accused and has
Signature Not Verified

confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2021.01.13
16:03:20 IST
Reason:

passed by the learned Special Judge­cum­Chief Judicial

1
Magistrate, Thoothukudi dated 23.07.2008 passed in Special

Case No.2 of 2004, convicting the accused – appellant herein for

the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and by which the learned

Special Judge sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.5,000/­,

the original accused has preferred the present appeal.

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that earlier by order

dated 02.12.2019, this Court issued the limited notice on

quantum of sentence only. Meaning thereby the conviction of the

appellant – original accused came to be confirmed by this Court.

Therefore, now the present appeal is required to be considered

qua the quantum of sentence only.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant –

original accused has submitted that by now the appellant –

original accused has undergone approximately one year and one­

month rigorous imprisonment. It is submitted that the accused­

appellant is already dismissed from service on being convicted for

the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is

submitted that the appellant is a senior citizen aged about 69/70

years. Therefore, it is prayed to reduce the sentence imposed by

2
the learned Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, to the

sentence already undergone.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent­

State, as such, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that

the appellant has been convicted for the offences under the

Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore no leniency may be

shown in favour of the accused.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the

facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that

out of two years sentence imposed by the learned Special Court,

confirmed by the High Court, the appellant has already

undergone approximately one year and one­month and

considering the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen aged

about 70 years and that he is already dismissed from service, we

are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the

sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment as imposed by the

learned Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, is reduced to

that of one year and one­month rigorous imprisonment.

7. In view of the above and in the facts and circumstances of

the case, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order of

conviction passed by the learned Special Court, confirmed by the

3
High Court, is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of two

years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned Special

Court while convicting the accused for the offences under

Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, confirmed by the High Court, is hereby

reduced to one year and one­month rigorous imprisonment. The

order of fine is not upset. The appellant herein be released on

completion of one year and one­month rigorous imprisonment, if

not required in any other case.

………………………………..J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]

………………………………..J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………..J.
JANUARY 13, 2021. [M.R. SHAH]

4