Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rama. Palaniappan vs State Through The Inspector Of Police on 29 July, 2021
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Ajay Rastogi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.704 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.119 of 2021)
RAMA PALANIAPPAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondent
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Crl.A. (MD) No.24 of 2012.
3. The appellant herein and two others were tried in Special CC No.20 of 2011 on the file of Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai for having committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short).
4. By his judgment and order dated 10.02.2012, the Special Judge acquitted other two accused but convicted the appellant of the Signature Not Verified aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo Digitally signed by Dr. Mukesh Nasa Date: 2021.07.31 11:15:12 IST rigorous imprisonment of one year on each of the aforesaid Reason: counts, with imposition of fine in the sum of Rs.1000/- on 2 both counts. It was further directed that in default of payment of fine, the appellant would be required to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
5. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Crl. A. (MD) No.24 of 2012 in the High Court.
It appears that notice for enhancement of sentence was issued by the High Court whereafter the entirety of the matter was considered.
6. After going through the record, the High Court affirmed the conviction recorded by the Special Judge on the aforesaid two counts against the appellant. The High Court was however of the view that the sentence imposed by the Special Judge was inadequate and, therefore, proceeded to impose sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years on the aforesaid two counts as the substantive sentence. The other elements of sentence, namely, imposition of fine and default sentence were however maintained by the High Court.
7. In the instant appeal arising therefrom, the notice was confined to the question of quantum of sentence and, as such, we refrain from going into the factual aspects of the matter in detail.
8. We have heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate in support of the appeal and Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned Advocate for the State.
3
9. Considering the totality of the circumstances on record, in our view, following order shall subserve the ends of justice.
10. We, therefore, direct:-
a. The substantive sentence of three years passed by the High Court in respect of aforesaid two offences shall stand substituted with sentence of 1½ year each in respect of both the offences as aforestated.
b. The appellant shall however pay Rs.1,50,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) by way of fine. The fine shall be deposited with the Trial Court within six weeks from today. c. In addition to the aforesaid amount of fine, the appellant shall also pay to the credit of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), within six weeks from today, to augment the resources of the Association required for rendering assistance to the dependants of Lawyers practising in this Court who lost their lives because of COVID-19.
d. Let the aforesaid amounts be deposited within six 4 weeks from today.
e. In case there be any failure to deposit the amounts, the substantive sentence imposed by the High Court shall stand revived and the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.
11. We have been told that medical condition of the appellant calls for immediate attention. The authorities in question shall bestow attention and do whatever is required at the earliest.
12. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Trial Court and the concerned prison where the appellant is presently lodged.
13. With the aforesaid modification, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
......................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] ......................J. [AJAY RASTOGI] NEW DELHI;
JULY 29,2021.
5ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-C (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.119/2021 RAMA PALANIAPPAN Petitioner VERSUS STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondent Date : 29-07-2021 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI For Petitioner Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Saif Shams, Adv.
Mr. Sheezas Hashmi, Adv.
For Respondent Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Mr. Saaketh Kasibhatla, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of, in terms of the Signed Order placed on the file.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MUKESH NASA) (VIRENDER SINGH)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER