The Supreme Court of India, while upholding the conviction of a former Inspector of Central Excise in a 22-year-old bribery case, has reduced her sentence to the period already undergone, citing mitigating factors including her advanced age and the “mental incarceration” caused by protracted legal proceedings. A bench of Justices N.V. Anjaria and Atul S. Chandurkar modified the sentence, observing that the “prolongation of a criminal case for an unreasonable period is in itself a kind of suffering.”
Background of the Case
The case dates back to September 16, 2002, when the appellant, K. Pounammal, then an Inspector of Central Excise, allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹300 from the complainant (PW-2), a supervisor at Parani Match Factory. The demand was for the issuance of a fresh central excise registration certificate. After the complainant was allegedly pressured and threatened, a complaint was lodged with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on September 21, 2002.
Following a trap proceeding, a charge-sheet was filed on May 7, 2003. On November 5, 2003, the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai, convicted Pounammal under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. She was sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 and one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(2), along with a fine of ₹1000 for each offence.
The conviction and sentence were subsequently upheld by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in its judgment dated August 4, 2010, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
In the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellant gave up the challenge to the conviction itself and confined the appeal to the question of the sentence. It was submitted that 22 years had passed since the incident. The court was informed that the appellant is now a 75-year-old widow who lives alone, belongs to a scheduled caste, and has already undergone 31 days of imprisonment. The plea was to consider the period already served as an adequate sentence.
Court’s Analysis and Rationale
The Supreme Court bench noted that both the trial court and the High Court had concurrently found that the essential elements of demand and acceptance of the bribe were proven. The evidence included the testimony of the complainant (PW-2) and his brother (PW-3), as well as a positive result from the sodium carbonate phenolphthalein test conducted on the appellant’s hands.
While confirming the conviction, the bench extensively deliberated on the principles of sentencing. Justice Anjaria, writing the judgment, observed that while conviction is based on evidence, sentencing is governed by a “host of factors.” The Court emphasized the relevance of the reformative theory of justice, stating, “Amongst these theories, reformative approach has become increasingly acceptable to the modern jurisprudence… The focus would be on the crime, and not on the criminal.”
The Court took judicial notice of the delay in the justice system, making a poignant observation: “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… 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.”
Citing several precedents, including B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Admn., the Court reiterated that the purpose of a sentence is to make the accused realize their act was harmful, deter potential offenders, and reclaim the offender as a law-abiding citizen. The judgment also referred to cases like M.W. Mohiuddin vs. State of Maharashtra and State of Maharashtra v. Rashid B. Mulani, where sentences were reduced due to significant delays in proceedings.
The Court held that factors such as “delay in the conclusion of the trial and legal proceedings, the age of the accused, his physical/health condition, the nature of the offence… and in the cases of illegal gratification the amount of bribe, loss of job and family obligations” are crucial considerations in determining the quantum of sentence.
Final Decision
Based on the specific circumstances—the incident occurring over 22 years ago, the appellant’s age of 75, her status as a widow living alone, and the period of imprisonment already served—the Court found it appropriate that she not be made to undergo further imprisonment.
The Supreme Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal while modifying the sentence. The judgment directs:
- The conviction of the appellant, K. Pounammal, is confirmed.
- The sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone (31 days).
- The amount of fine is increased by ₹25,000 over and above the fine originally imposed.
- The appellant must pay the total fine on or before September 10, 2025.
- If the appellant fails to pay the fine within the stipulated time, the original order of sentence shall revive, and she will be liable to surrender.
