Date of judgement:
23 September 2011
Bench:
Justice P. Sathasivam
Justice B.S. Chauhan
Parties:
Appellate – A.B. Bhaskara Rao
Respondent – Inspector of Police, CBI
Subject
The following case involves a bribery charge on a public servant and his plea for reduction of sentence to the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.
Overview
- A.B. Bhaskara Rao (appellant/accused) was working in the Traffic Cadre section as a Head Clerk at the South-Central Railway, Vijayawada. His duties included matters like promotions, retirements, transfers, etc. Rama Rao (complainant and also PW1 in the trial court) was transferred to Vijayawada from Tanuku as a Yard Points Man.
- Since the appellant was dealing with transfers, the complainant met him on 13.11.1997 at the Vijayawada office. There he was informed by the appellant that his transfer order was ready and in place before the APO for signature. However, the next day, the appellant demanded Rs.200/- from the complainant to release the order.
- A complaint was made by the complainant to the Inspector of Police, CBI Vijayawada. A trap was laid by the CBI officers and the appellant was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe. An FIR was registered against him under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(ii) r.w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the Court of Special Judge for CBI.
- The Special Judge, CBI, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the 1988 Act and 1-year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d). When appealed against this order to Andhra Pradesh High Court, it was rejected. Hence, the appellants approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.
- The Supreme Court issued a notice stating that this matter is confined to the quantum of the sentence and hence the arguments of the parties should be in that regard only. The learned counsel for the appellant said that the Supreme Court, in exercise of Article 142, has the power to do complete justice and can allow the appellant to argue the case for acquittal on merits. To support this, he cited Yomeshbhai Pranshankar Bhatt V. State of Gujarat.
- The request of the learned counsel was rejected by the Court because it believed that the guilt of the accused has already been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the trial court based on the oral and documentary evidence. Hence, the Supreme Court, in this matter, shall only be deciding upon the reduction of the sentence imposed and not on the acquittal of the accused.
Issues
- Does the Supreme Court, exercising its power under Article 142 have the power to pass an order or grant a relief that is contrary to the provisions of substantive law?
Legal Provisions
- Sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Punishment for public servant accepting gratification.
- 13(1)(d)(ii) of the 1988 Act – Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
- Section 13(2) of the 1988 Act – Punishment for such criminal misconduct.
- Article 142 of the Constitution – Power of Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice.
Judgement Analysis
- The counsel for the appellant submitted that the incident took place 14 years ago and subsequently the appellant has lost his job and spent 52 days in prison. He requested the Court to show leniency towards his client and reduce the sentence. He also said that the amount of Rs.200/- is very trivial in nature. He relied on the judgement of Bechaarbhai S. Prajapati v. State of Gujarat and pleaded with the Court to modify the sentence to the extent of the period already undergone.
- The Supreme Court pointing out Sections 7, 13 (1) and (2) of the 1988 Act said that it is well established by the use of the word ‘shall’ that a public servant found guilty under the aforementioned Sections shall be punished with imprisonment not less than 6 months and 1 year, respectively. Hence, the Court upheld the order passed by the Special Court and affirmed by the High Court. The Court said that both sentences ought to run concurrently.
- The Apex Court took cognizance of the fact that under Article 142, it has the power to do complete justice, including the power to reduce the sentence to the extent of the period already undergone. But it would not be prudent to use this power if it is inconsistent or if it is in contravention to statutory enactments. The Court relied on the judgement of Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr. (1963) which held that an order under Article 142 must not be inconsistent with the substantive provisions of law.
- The honorable Court also reiterated its judgments in cases like Bar Assn. V. Union of India, Rajaram V. Union of India, A.R. Antulay V. R.S.Nayak, M.C. Mehta V. Kamal Nath, State of Punjab V. Rajesh Syal, etc. and held the Court shall not pass any order under Article 142 of the Constitution which would amount to supplanting substantive law or ignore its statutory provisions.
- Finally, the Court rejected the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant and agreed with the judgement of the trial court, and dismissed the appeal. The Court also cancelled the appellant's bail bond and directed the trial court to secure his presence for the remainder of his sentence.
Conclusion
Article 142 is a mechanism that can be used only by the Supreme Court which enables it to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice. However, this case very clearly indicated that such powers must not be used if it is inconsistent with any statutory provisions.
Hence, the Court, in this case, observed that Article 142 is a constitutional power not meant to be used when their use may cause direct conflict with what has been expressly provided for in the statute.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
