Statutory minimum sentence cannot be reduced on equitable grounds; Article 142 cannot override an express legislative mandate.

Where notice is confined to sentence, the scope of hearing may be enlarged only on the facts and circumstances of the case; here, no exceptional basis was shown to reopen the appeal on all merits after concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and HC. The Court further held that statutory minimum punishment under the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be reduced on grounds of delay, the small amount involved, loss of employment, or sympathy, and that Article 142 cannot be used to override an express legislative mandate. The conviction and sentence were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, despite notice confined to the quantum of sentence, the appeal could be examined on all merits; (ii) Whether the sentence could be reduced below the statutory minimum on the grounds of delay, small amount involved, loss of employment, or the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether, despite notice confined to the quantum of sentence, the appeal could be examined on all merits.

Analysis: The notice issued by the Court was specifically confined to the question of sentence. The Court held that enlargement of the scope of hearing beyond that limited notice depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. As the trial court and the High Court had already examined the evidence in detail and concurrently found the appellant guilty, no extraordinary circumstance was shown to reopen the appeal on all aspects.

Conclusion: The request to argue the appeal on all merits was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence could be reduced below the statutory minimum on the grounds of delay, small amount involved, loss of employment, or the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 prescribed minimum sentences for the offences proved, and that delay in disposal, the smallness of the bribe amount, or loss of service were not sufficient grounds to reduce the punishment below the statutory minimum. The Court further held that Article 142 cannot be used to disregard or supplant substantive statutory provisions, and cannot be invoked merely on sympathy to grant relief contrary to the minimum sentence mandated by law.

Conclusion: The sentence was not liable to be reduced and the conviction and sentence were maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was found meritless, the conviction and sentence were affirmed, and the appellant was directed to serve the remaining sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 142 cannot be exercised to grant relief inconsistent with an express statutory mandate, and where a statute prescribes minimum punishment, the Court will not reduce the sentence below that minimum on equitable considerations.

---