Kirpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana
EmailAppeal: SLP (Crl.) No. 1448 of 1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5-2-1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 536 of 1987 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chan-digarh)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5-2-1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 536 of 1987 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chan-digarh)
Petitioner: Kirpal Singh
Respondent: State of Haryana
Apeal: SLP (Crl.) No. 1448 of 1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5-2-1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 536 of 1987 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chan-digarh)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5-2-1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 536 of 1987 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chan-digarh)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 05, 1999
Appearances:
Mr. R.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 392, 397 – Sentence – Plea-bargaining – When permissi-ble. Held that courts cannot by-pass the imposition of minimum sentence on the premise that plea-bargaining was adopted by accused. Thippaswamy’s case distinguished.(Paras 3, 4)
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 392, 397 – Sentence – Plea-bargaining – When permissi-ble. Held that courts cannot by-pass the imposition of minimum sentence on the premise that plea-bargaining was adopted by accused. Thippaswamy’s case distinguished.(Paras 3, 4)
Cases Reffered:
1. Thippaswamy v. State of Karnataka (1983) 1 SCC 194
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Mr. R.S. Sodhi, learned counsel contended that the petitioner was sentenced to the period already undergone by the trial court on an understanding that the Court would pass such a sentence. Learned counsel submits that the practice of plea-bargaining was adopted in the trial court for that purpose and therefore it was not open to the trial court to enhance the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.
2. Learned counsel in support of the said contention invited our attention to the decision of this Court in Thippaswamy v. State of Karnataka (1983) 1 SCC 194. That is a case where the convic-tion was passed under Section 304-A IPC and the trial court awarded a fine sentence of Rs. 1000 which on appeal by the State was enhanced to rigorous imprisonment for one year by the High Court. This Court pointed out that in a case where there was plea-bargain it was not open to the High Court to unilaterally enhance the sentence and if the High Court felt that the sentence awarded by the trial court was disproportionately low the course which should have been adopted was to remit the case back to the trial court for fresh trial.
3. But in this case the situation is different. The offence found against the appellant is under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code for which the maximum punishment imposable is 14 years and perhaps on the facts of this case the maximum punishment is imprisonment for 10 years. But Section 392 IPC has to be read with Section 397 in certain cases as the section bridles the powers of the court regarding the extent of sentence. The court cannot award a sentence less than 7 years of imprisonment when in a particular case Section 397 is to be read along with Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The petitioner would have succeeded in his plea-bargain by getting the minimum sentence prescribed by law and that is what the High Court has granted. Neither the trial court nor the High Court has jurisdiction to bypass the minimum limit prescribed by law on the premise that a plea-bargain was adopted by the ac-cused. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel that the accused would have thought that the Court would give him punish-ment even less than what is prescribed by law as the minimum.
5. For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss this SLP.
Court Master.
1. Mr. R.S. Sodhi, learned counsel contended that the petitioner was sentenced to the period already undergone by the trial court on an understanding that the Court would pass such a sentence. Learned counsel submits that the practice of plea-bargaining was adopted in the trial court for that purpose and therefore it was not open to the trial court to enhance the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.
2. Learned counsel in support of the said contention invited our attention to the decision of this Court in Thippaswamy v. State of Karnataka (1983) 1 SCC 194. That is a case where the convic-tion was passed under Section 304-A IPC and the trial court awarded a fine sentence of Rs. 1000 which on appeal by the State was enhanced to rigorous imprisonment for one year by the High Court. This Court pointed out that in a case where there was plea-bargain it was not open to the High Court to unilaterally enhance the sentence and if the High Court felt that the sentence awarded by the trial court was disproportionately low the course which should have been adopted was to remit the case back to the trial court for fresh trial.
3. But in this case the situation is different. The offence found against the appellant is under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code for which the maximum punishment imposable is 14 years and perhaps on the facts of this case the maximum punishment is imprisonment for 10 years. But Section 392 IPC has to be read with Section 397 in certain cases as the section bridles the powers of the court regarding the extent of sentence. The court cannot award a sentence less than 7 years of imprisonment when in a particular case Section 397 is to be read along with Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The petitioner would have succeeded in his plea-bargain by getting the minimum sentence prescribed by law and that is what the High Court has granted. Neither the trial court nor the High Court has jurisdiction to bypass the minimum limit prescribed by law on the premise that a plea-bargain was adopted by the ac-cused. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel that the accused would have thought that the Court would give him punish-ment even less than what is prescribed by law as the minimum.
5. For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss this SLP.
Court Master.
