9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal offences. The convicts of the offences under the Act are to be dealt with heavy hand and deterrent rod. No populous or sympathetic approach is needed in such cases. The only exception is the existence of special circumstances for awarding the minimum sentence. 3. The important point of law involved in the present appeal is as to whether the benefit of Jammu & Kashmir Probation of Offenders Act can be extended to the convicts under the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 4. The facts giving rise to the determination of the question noted hereinabove are that the respondent, when posted as cashier in the Procurement Department of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, tampered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu who charged him for the commission of offences under Section 5(2) of the Act and Sections 409 and 468 of the Ranbir Penal Code vide its order dated 1st May, 1991. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove its case, the prosecution had examined S/Sh. Davinder Singh, Shambu Nath, Dharampal, Om Parkash, Nertar Parkash, Babu Ram, Romesh Kumar Bali, Khajour Singh, Suram Singh, Bal Krishan, Jagdish Chander, Radhey Shayam, Kuldeep Khoda, R.P. Abrol and Ranbir Singh as witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 313 of the Central Criminal Procedure Code, the respondent denied all the allegations. After cri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... self cheque No.0547185. This was done on 30.8.1984. ii. The aforementioned amount was not deposited in the account. iii. That a Senior Officer namely Babu Ram on checking the account found that the aforementioned amount though withdrawn was not deposited in the State Treasury. iv. That an enquiry was held. Thereafter the appellants deposited the amount on various dates. This was of course done before the present criminal investigation started in this case." 9. The plea of the respondent that while he was on his way to deposit the entire amount in the Jammu & Kashmir Bank a sum of ₹ 40,000/- was lost, was held to have been not substantiated. Deposits were proved to have been made after the factum of withholding the money by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection (2), of section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act Svt. 2006 or the supersession of Immoral Traffic in Woman and Girls Act, 1956 (Central Act of 1956) or any law in force in the State relating to Juvenile Offenders." 13. In view of unambiguous and categoric provisions of Section 18 of the Jammu & Kashmir Probation of Offenders Act, it is incumbent upon us to hold that the High Court was not justified in giving the respondent the benefit of the Jammu & Kashmir Probation of Offenders Act as the said Act was not applicable to offences under the Act. We are sure that had the provisions of the 1966 Act been brought to the notice of the High Court, the order impugned could not have been passed. The judgment impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence can further be reduced to six months only "for any special reasons recorded in writing". 17. Relying upon the judgments of this Court in Aditya Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. 2000 SCC (Cri.) 1206, Vidyadhar Ganesh Lanjekar v. State of Maharashtra 1993 C.L.J 3667 and Ghulam Din Buch & Ors. v. State of J & K 1996CriLJ2291 the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that in view of peculiar and special circumstances of this case, the ends of justice would be met only by awarding the sentence of fine to his client without sending him to jail at this stage. However, the perusal of the aforesaid judgments indicates that in none of the cases the Court considered the effect of provisions of law prescribing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ood' or 'other reasons'. The fact that the convict had reached his superannuation is not a special reason. Similarly pendency of criminal case for over a period of time can also not be treated as a special reason. Prolonged litigation in the country is admittedly a general reason in criminal cases. This Court under similar circumstances in Jagjeevan Prasad v. State of M.P. (2000)8SCC22 observed: "Yet another consequence would be that if any public servant succeeds in protracting the criminal proceedings to the stage of superannuation he can also claim the benefit of "special reasons", if the High Court's reasoning is to be accepted. We find the High Court's approach not only erroneous but pernicious, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
