Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In an order passed on 8th February, 2019 the Supreme Court observed that a sentence lesser than the minimum prescribed sentence by any statute cannot be imposed.
The bench consisting of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta took note of several cases on this issue and held:
“… where minimum sentence is provided for, the Court cannot impose less than the minimum sentence. It is also held that provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be resorted to impose sentence less than the minimum sentence.”
The Court passed the order while dealing in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram Das, under the Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act(SC/ST Act), 1989. Section 3(1)(xi) provides for a sentence of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.
In the case, the trial court has punished the accused for a sentence of six months’ rigorous imprisonment in addition to the payment of a fine of Rs. 500. When the accused appealed against this verdict, he did not press the appeal on merit instead sought reduction of sentence. The High Court set aside the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment, and reduced it to the period already undergone along with an enhanced fine of Rs. 3000.
In appeal filed by the state, the question arose before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court could award a sentence less than the minimum sentence contemplated by the statute. The apex court concurred with the argument of the State that that the Court does not have the power to reduce statutory penalties below their prescribed minimum, even in the exercise of their inherent, residuary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
With this the Bench proceeded to allow the appeal and Quash the High Court’s order stating,
“The conviction has not been disputed by the respondent before the High Court as the quantum of punishment alone was disputed. Thus, the High Court could not award sentence less than the minimum sentence contemplated by the Statute in view of the judgments referred to above.
Therefore, the present appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. The respondent shall undergo the remaining sentence imposed by the trial court for an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act. The respondent shall surrender before the Court within four weeks.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824