- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
D. Srinivasan And Others v. Delhi Special Police Establishment And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Ten individuals (A-1 to A-10) were prosecuted in Calendar Case No. 1 of 1971 before the Special Judge, Madras, for offences under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 381, 411 and 414 IPC, and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution alleged that:
- A-1, A-2, A-3, A-8, A-9 and A-10 were public servants employed in the Southern Railway, five of whom were Railway Protection Force (RPF) Rakshaks.
- A-4 and A-5 were railway contractors responsible for removing refuse from the Golden Rock Railway Workshop.
- A-6 (agent of A-4 and son of A-7) and A-7 were iron and hardware merchants.
- All accused, along with an approver (PW-4), conspired to steal scrap metal (M.S. plates) belonging to the Southern Railway. Four specific incidents between 30 June and 30 July 1969 involved removal of scrap in wagons under forged gate passes, allegedly for pecuniary gain.
The Special Judge convicted nine of the accused (A-1 to A-5 and A-7 to A-10), acquitting A-6. On appeal, the High Court of Madras dismissed the convicted persons’ appeals. Each of the convicted accused then filed special leave petitions to the Supreme Court, which granted leave and registered the present Criminal Appeals Nos. 592, 617-618, 676 and 748 of 1980.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the evidence on record, including the testimony of the approver (PW-4) and corroborative material, was sufficient to sustain the convictions of the appellants for conspiracy, theft, receiving or disposing of stolen property, and corruption.
- Whether, in light of the passage of approximately twenty-three years since the offences (1969) and the statutory discretion under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (as it stood in 1961), the sentences imposed should be reduced.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- Challenged the correctness of the concurrent findings, contending the judgments contained infirmities (though none were specifically demonstrated).
- Requested reduction of sentences because:
- The incidents occurred in 1969 and more than two decades had elapsed.
- Many appellants had become elderly; counsel indicated that A-1 had died and others might also have passed away.
- The appellants had faced prolonged trial and appeals, lost their employment, and had dependent families.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court undertook an independent review of the trial and appellate records, focusing on the evidence of the approver (PW-4) and other material witnesses. It held:
- The approver’s testimony was “amply corroborated” by independent evidence, including recoveries effected during investigation.
- Both the Trial Court and High Court had correctly accepted this evidence; the appellants failed to identify any infirmity.
- Accordingly, the Court found “absolutely no ground” to interfere with the concurrent findings of guilt.
- On sentencing, the Court invoked the proviso to Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (as it stood in 1961), which permits imposition of less than the one-year minimum sentence for “special reasons recorded.”
- Special reasons identified included:
- Twenty-three years had elapsed since the offences.
- Appellants’ advanced age and possible deaths.
- Loss of employment and prolonged legal ordeal.
- The Court therefore reduced each custodial sentence to “the period already undergone,” while confirming fines previously imposed on A-1, A-4 and A-7 with the default clause.
Holding and Implications
Convictions CONFIRMED; custodial sentences REDUCED to period already undergone; fines on A-1, A-4 and A-7 CONFIRMED.
Practical consequence: All living appellants need not serve further imprisonment, having already undergone sufficient jail time. The decision affords individualized relief in sentencing without disturbing the findings of guilt and sets no new substantive precedent beyond reaffirming the court’s discretionary power to impose sentences below the statutory minimum for recorded special reasons.
Order
1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 592 of 1980, 617-618 of 1980 and 676 of 1980 were taken on board. All these appeals arise out of the common judgment of the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal Nos. 546 of 1975, 588 of 1975, 590 of 1975 and 591-92 of 1975. The appellants are convicted under Section 120-B of the IPC read with Sections 381, 411 and 414 IPC and Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to various periods of rigorous imprisonment. A-1, A-4 and A-7 were also sentenced to pay fine. In Calendar Case No. 1 of 1971 on the file of the Special Judge ten original accused were tried for the above-mentioned offences. The trial court acquitted A-6 and convicted the rest of them. The convicted accused had preferred the appeals before the High Court but the same were dismissed.
2. All the convicted accused preferred special leave petitions and leave was granted pursuant to which these appeals before us are numbered.
3. In Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 1980, A-1 is the appellant. In Criminal Appeal No. 676 of 1980, A-2, A-3, A-8, A-9 and A-10 are the appellants. In Criminal Appeal Nos. 617-18 of 1980 A-4 and A-5 are the appellants. In Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 1980 A-7 is the appellant.
4. A-1, A-2, A-3, A-8, A-9 and A-10 are public servants being employed in the Southern Railway. A-4 and A-5 are the Railway Contractors of rubbish and the workshop refuse in the Golden Rock Railway Workshop. A-6 and A-7 are the Hardware and Iron Merchants at Tiruchirapally. It is alleged that all of them conspired along with one Kaliaperumal, the approver and committed theft of scrap materials, M.S Plates belonging to the Southern Railways. A-2, A-3, A-8, A-9 and A-10 who are Rakshaks in the Railway Protection Force were involved. A-6 was the agent of A-4 and the son of A-7. It is alleged that on June 30, 1969, A-1, A-8 and A-9 committed theft of metal scrap worth about Rs 2,250 and they removed them in wagon under the cover of a gate pass. Likewise three more instances have been cited by the prosecution which took place on July 1, 1969, July 19, 1969 to July 29, 1969 and July 28, 1969 to July 30, 1969 during which properties belonging to the Railway Workshop were removed in wagon under cover of gate pass and for corrupt considerations the public servants namely Rakshaks are alleged to have committed the act of misconduct and caused pecuniary advantage to merchants and contractors who also figured as accused. Several witnesses were examined. The accused, however, denied the offence.
5. We have perused the judgment as well as the evidence of the material witnesses including that of the Approver, PW 4. His evidence is amply corroborated by other evidence. The investigating authorities also effected recoveries. The evidence as against these appellants has been accepted by both the courts below. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants could not show any infirmity in the judgment. The evidence is clinching as against appellants. Therefore, we see absolutely no ground to interfere with the findings and the courts below have rightly held that the charges as against the appellants are amply proved. Now coming to the sentence we find that A-1 is sentenced to the maximum period of five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and for lesser periods under the other counts. A-4, A-5 and A-7 are sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 120-B read with Sections 381, 411 and 414 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Rest of the accused are sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment.
6. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1969. Now nearly twenty-three years have elapsed. All the appellants must have become very old and the learned counsel says that some of them may have died but not able to give the names as such but he is definite that A-1 has died. The appellants have undergone the ordeal of trial for a number of years and convictions have been hanging on their heads for all these years and they have also lost their jobs and they have large families dependent upon them. In such circumstances the Court can award lesser sentence than one year which is the maximum sentence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The section as it stood in the year 1961 lays down that the Court for any special reason recorded can impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year. The circumstances pointed out above do warrant that a lesser sentence should be imposed. From the records we find that the appellants were in jail for some time and in these circumstances we confirm their convictions and reduce the sentence under each charge to the period already undergone. The sentences of fine in respect of A-1 in Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 1980 D. Srinivasan, A-4 in Criminal Appeal No. 617 of 1980 Sandanaswamy and A-7 in Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 1980 A.R.M Perumal Chettiar are confirmed with default clause.
7. These appeals are allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
Alert