The Supreme Court has reiterated that it cannot invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to reduce a sentence below the statutory minimum prescribed by law. The ruling came in Dashrath vs. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 2025, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13997 of 2024], where a Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Court also ruled that a sanction to prosecute under the Prevention of Corruption Act is valid as long as the sanctioning authority applies its mind and is satisfied that a prima facie case exists, regardless of whether it adopts the exact language of a draft order.
Background
The appellant Dashrath, a retired public servant, was convicted by the Special Court, Parbhani, in 2004 for demanding and accepting a bribe in exchange for handing over 7/12 land extracts. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) of two years and imposed fines of ₹2,000 and ₹1,000 respectively for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) upheld the conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2004, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments by the Appellant
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the appellant, raised the following contentions:
- The sanction to prosecute was granted mechanically without due application of mind.
- The investigation was conducted by an Inspector of Police, contrary to Section 17 of the PC Act which requires investigation by a Deputy Superintendent of Police or above.
- The demand for bribe was not conclusively proved, as required under Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2023) 4 SCC 731].
- One of the seizure witnesses was related to the complainant, casting doubt on credibility.
- In the alternative, she urged the Court to reduce the sentence considering the appellant’s advanced age and the long passage of time since the offence (1998).
Findings of the Court
On the issue of sanction, the Court held that:
“Grant of sanction is an administrative function based on the subjective satisfaction of the sanctioning authority… all that is necessary for a sanction to be granted is for him to be satisfied about the existence of a prima facie case.”
The Court rejected the argument that the use of a pre-drafted sanction order indicated non-application of mind. It observed that:
“That there has been a complete absence of application of mind by PW-3 is, thus, not proved; also, that there has been a failure of justice, has not been shown.”
On the competence of the investigating officer, the Court noted that the Maharashtra Government had issued a Government Order on 19 April 1989 under the first proviso to Section 17 of the PC Act authorising all Police Inspectors in the Anti-Corruption Bureau to investigate offences under the Act. This order was held to have statutory force, and the Court held:
“It was not necessary to bring the law on record as evidence in the trial… it was the duty of the special court to take judicial notice of such law, which it did, and we approve of such approach.”
Regarding proof of demand, the Court found the prosecution evidence credible and stated:
“The demand, in our view, has been proved without a doubt… He answered [questions] quite frankly.”
On the credibility of the seizure witness, the Court held that his relationship with the complainant did not by itself vitiate the testimony:
“The evidence of the said witness had been found creditworthy… Hence, we see no reason to hold that by reason of mere relationship, the conviction would stand vitiated.”
Legal Position on Article 142 and Minimum Sentences
The Court considered previous decisions, including Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat [(2012) 7 SCC 80] and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram Das [(2019) 4 SCC 125], and reaffirmed the settled legal position:
“Where a minimum sentence is prescribed by the statute, it cannot be reduced by this Court even in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.”
The Bench observed:
“To reduce the sentence to a term of imprisonment which is not provided in the statute and below the minimum period, as prescribed, could be seen as usurpation of the function of the legislature by this Court.”
Nonetheless, considering the advanced age of the appellant, the long pendency of proceedings, and the mental anxiety suffered, the Court exercised its discretion to modify the sentence as follows:
- The sentence under Section 7 of the PC Act was reduced from two years R.I. to one year simple imprisonment.
- The sentence under Section 13(1)(d) remained unchanged.
- Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.
“We are of the considered opinion that imposition of sentence of prison term for the minimum period would sufficiently serve the interests of justice.”
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by modifying the sentence but reaffirmed the validity of the conviction. It directed the appellant to surrender within six weeks and clarified that failure to do so would revive the original sentence imposed by the trial court.
Citation: Dashrath v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13997 of 2024)
