The Supreme Court has observed that prolonging a criminal case for an unreasonable period amounts to “mental incarceration” for the person facing the proceedings, stressing that the delay itself becomes a form of punishment.
A bench of Justices N.V. Anjaria and A.S. Chandurkar made the observation while partly allowing an appeal by a 75-year-old former Central Excise inspector convicted in a corruption case. The court reduced her sentence to the period already undergone—31 days of imprisonment—but enhanced the fine by ₹25,000.
The case dates back to September 2002 when the woman, then serving as an inspector, was accused of demanding an illegal gratification of ₹300. A trial court convicted her under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and awarded one year’s imprisonment. The Madras High Court upheld the conviction in August 2010.
Challenging the order, the woman approached the apex court. During the hearing, her counsel gave up the challenge to the conviction and instead sought reduction of the sentence on account of her age, widowhood, and prolonged pendency of proceedings.
“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,” the bench remarked, noting that the case had lingered for over 22 years.
The court underlined that in the present judicial system, delayed proceedings cause “distress and mental agony” for the convicted person awaiting the outcome. It further observed that sentencing theories—punitive, deterrent, and reformative—serve different purposes, but the reformative approach has gained wider acceptance in modern jurisprudence.
“When there are mitigating circumstances, the court leans towards reducing the sentence. The focus is on the crime and not on the criminal. The society and system would nurture the guilt with positivity, while selecting the sentence,” the bench said.
The bench treated the 31 days of imprisonment already undergone as sufficient punishment, while directing the woman to pay the enhanced fine by September 10. It also clarified that if the fine is not paid, the original sentence would revive, and she would be required to surrender.
