Skip to main content

Penalty imposed for offence should be proportionate: SC

The Supreme Court has said that it was incumbent upon courts to bear in mind the impact of the offence on the society including on the victim and there should be proportionality between the offence committed and the penalty imposed.

Holding that "sentencing for any offence has a social goal", a bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C. Pant in a recent judgment said: "It is obligatory on the part of the Court to keep in mind the impact of the offence on the society, and its ramification including the repercussion on the victim."

"For the purpose of just and proper punishment, not only the accused must be made to realize that the crime was committed by him, but there should be proportionality between the offence committed and the penalty imposed," said Justice Pant pronouncing the judgment.

"In each case, facts and circumstances of that case are always required to be taken into consideration," the court said, while upholding the November 8, 2011 verdict of Punjab and Haryana High Court confirming the conviction of Assistant Sub-Inspector Sanjiv Kumar by a court in Punjab's Kapurthala.

Posted in a police station in Phagwara city, he entered the premises of a foreign exchange dealer and took away Rs.6,64,576 in Indian currency and foreign currency of the value of Rs. 13,44,500.

Not only that, he used a part of this money to foist a case on the firm's proprietor Sukhraj Singh, showing it as having been recovered from his car after it was intercepted at a checkpoint outside the town.

However, on investigation, this case was found to be false.

Thereafter Sukhraj Singh lodged a complaint with deputy inspector general of police, internal vigilance cell, recording the manner in which robbery was committed from the premises of his firm.

Sanjiv Kumar was convicted by the Kapurthala sessions court for offences under section 395 (Punishment for dacoity), section 450 (House trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life) and section 342 (Punishment for wrongful confinement) of Indian Penal Code.

While the trial court upon conviction sentenced him to varied terms of imprisonment and fines, the high court reduced the sentence to three years with enhanced fine.

 Article referred: http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/penalty-imposed-for-offence-should-be-proportionate-sc_1565518.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more