1960 (2) TMI 77 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds conviction, imposes 6-month sentence and fine for IPC violation.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's conviction of the appellant under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code, imposing a sentence of 6 months' ... - Issues Involved:1. Compliance with Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Alleged violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.3. Justification for setting aside the acquittal by the High Court.4. Severity of the sentence imposed.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Compliance with Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The appellant argued that the provisions of Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not complied with, thereby vitiating the High Court judgment. The High Court admitted the State's appeal against the acquittal and issued notice to the appellant's advocates. The appellant's advocates had requested the High Court not to issue any summons as appearance had already been entered on behalf of the appellant. The High Court issued notice under Section 422 to the advocates and also intimated the Special Judge to inform the appellant. The High Court found that the appellant was fully apprised of the appeal. The Supreme Court held that Section 422 does not require notice to be served directly on the appellant but to be given to him, which was complied with in this case. The Court concluded that the appellant was aware of the appeal and had entered an appearance through his advocates, thus satisfying the requirements of Section 422.2. Alleged Violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution:The appellant contended that his conviction was vitiated due to a violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which states that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The appellant argued that he was compelled to produce the money by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr. Kaliyappan. The Court held that for Article 20(3) to apply, it must be established that the individual was accused of an offence and was compelled to be a witness against himself. The Court found that there was no formal accusation against the appellant at the time he was asked to produce the money and that the appellant was not compelled but voluntarily produced the currency notes. Therefore, the provisions of Article 20(3) were not attracted.3. Justification for Setting Aside the Acquittal by the High Court:The appellant argued that the High Court should not have set aside the acquittal unless there were compelling reasons and that the Special Judge's grounds for distrusting Mr. Kaliyappan's evidence were not specifically considered by the High Court. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and the judgments of both the Special Judge and the High Court. The Court held that the High Court's view that the Special Judge's judgment was perverse was correct. The Supreme Court found that the grounds given by the Special Judge for distrusting Mr. Kaliyappan's evidence were perverse and that Mr. Kaliyappan had no reason to concoct a false case. The Court agreed with the High Court that there was no real ground to disbelieve Mr. Kaliyappan's evidence and that the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal.4. Severity of the Sentence Imposed:The appellant argued that the sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 was severe, considering the circumstances, including his business and residence in Burma. The Supreme Court acknowledged the appellant's plea for mitigation of the sentence but held that judicially, the sentence imposed by the High Court was not severe for an offence involving an attempt to bribe a responsible public servant. The Court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and dismissed the appeal.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's conviction of the appellant under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. The Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding non-compliance with Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution, and the severity of the sentence.