# RAMASHRA YA CHAKRA V ARTI v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1976] 2 S.C.R. 713
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-11-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 1975
- **Bench:** P. K. Goswami, N. L. Untwalia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ramashra-ya-chakra-v-arti-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-6872
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sentence-Factors to <be considered in determining sentence-1.P.C. Section
409 and 467.
}
The appellant was a Circle Organizer in the Tribal Welfare Department.
He was entrusted with the distribution of stipends to adivasl students of the
Tribal Welfare Department School. He misappropriated a sum of Rs. 5001 ·
meant for 4 students and also forged certain entries in the bills.
He was convicted under section 409 and section 467 of J.P.C. by the Sessions Judge and
sentenced to 4 years ri'goious imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5001-. The High
Court on appeal maintained the convictign but reduced the sentence to 2 years
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 /-.
On an appeal by Special leave limited only to the question of sentence.
HELD : 1.
To adjust the duration of imprisonment to the gravity of a
particular offence is not always an easy task. It is always a matter of judicial
discretion subject to any mandatory minimum prescribed 'by Jaw.
In judging
the adequacy of a sentence, the nature of the offence, the circumstances of its
GQmmission, the age and character of the offender, injury to individuals or to
Society, effect of the punishment on the offender, eye to correction or reformation of the offender, are some among3t many other factors which would be
ordinarily taken into consideration by courts.
[713GH, 714-FG]
A
B
c
D
2. Trial Courts in this country already over-burdened with work have hardly
any time- to set apart for sentencing reflection. In a good system of adminis,
E
trati'on of criminal justice pre-sentence investigation may be of great sociological value.
Throughout the world humanitarianism is permeating into penology and the courts are expected to discharge their appropriate roles.
[714 GH]
3. Wi!hou~ minimising the seriousness of the offence, having regard to the
circumstances of the case, the sentence was rednced from 2 years ·to one
year.
[715-C]

## Text

....
'
' ..
713
RAMASHRA YA CHAKRA V ARTI
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
November 13, 1975
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.]
Sentence-Factors to <be considered in determining sentence-1.P.C. Section
409 and 467.
}
The appellant was a Circle Organizer in the Tribal Welfare Department.
He was entrusted with the distribution of stipends to adivasl students of the
Tribal Welfare Department School. He misappropriated a sum of Rs. 5001 ·
meant for 4 students and also forged certain entries in the bills.
He was convicted under section 409 and section 467 of J.P.C. by the Sessions Judge and
sentenced to 4 years ri'goious imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5001-. The High
Court on appeal maintained the convictign but reduced the sentence to 2 years
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 /-.
On an appeal by Special leave limited only to the question of sentence.
HELD : 1.
To adjust the duration of imprisonment to the gravity of a
particular offence is not always an easy task. It is always a matter of judicial
discretion subject to any mandatory minimum prescribed 'by Jaw.
In judging
the adequacy of a sentence, the nature of the offence, the circumstances of its
GQmmission, the age and character of the offender, injury to individuals or to
Society, effect of the punishment on the offender, eye to correction or reformation of the offender, are some among3t many other factors which would be
ordinarily taken into consideration by courts.
[713GH, 714-FG]
A
B
c
D
2. Trial Courts in this country already over-burdened with work have hardly
any time- to set apart for sentencing reflection. In a good system of adminis,
E
trati'on of criminal justice pre-sentence investigation may be of great sociological value.
Throughout the world humanitarianism is permeating into penology and the courts are expected to discharge their appropriate roles.
[714 GH]
3. Wi!hou~ minimising the seriousness of the offence, having regard to the
circumstances of the case, the sentence was rednced from 2 years ·to one
year.
[715-C]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 154
of 1975.
)_
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
18th February 1975 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur
in Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 1972.
Sarju Prasad and S. N. Prasad for the Appellant.
Ram Panjwani, Dy. Advocate General, M.P., H. S.
Parihar and
l. N. Shrofj for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GoswAMI, J.-To adjust the duration of imprisonment to the gravity
of a particular offence is not always an easy task. Sentencing involves
an element of guessing but often settles down to practice obtaining in
a p:irticular court with inevitable differences arising in the context of
the times and events in the light of social imperatives. It is always a
F
.G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 2 S.C.R.
matter of judicial discretion subject to any mandatory minimum pres--
cribed by law.
Hegel in his 'Philosophy of Right' pithily put the difficulty as.
follows : -
.
"Reason cannot i;Ietermine, nor can the concept provide
any principle whose applicatfon could decide whether justice
requires for an offence (i) a corporal punishment of forty
lashes or thirty-nine, or (ii) a fine of five dollars or four
dollars ninety-three, four, etc., cents, or (iii) imprisonment
of a year or three hundred and sixty-four, three, etc., days,
or a year and one, -two, or three days. And yet injustice is .
done at once if there is one lash too many, or one dollar or
one cent, one week in prison or one day, too many or too
few".
The present appeal by special leave being limited to sente'ace weare to consider about the appropriate deserts for the appellant in this
case.
The appellant was a Circle Organiser in the Tribal Welfare Departmrnt at Lohandiguda in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He was entrusted with the distribution of stipends to Adivasi students of the Tribal Welfare Department School. He misappropriate_d a sum ot
Rs. 500 /- meant for four students and also forged certain entries in
the bills.
He was convicted under section 409 and section 467 IPC
by the Sessions Judge and sentenced for each head of charge to concurrent four years'
rigorous
imprisonment and also
to a fine
of
Rs. 500/-, in default to rigorous imprisonment for six months.
The
fligh Court on appeal maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to two years' rigorous imprisonment maintaining the fine.
From a perusal of the judgment of the High Court which is the
only document in the paper book in addition to the special leave petition, it is not very clear about the offence of forgery committed by the
accused. We would, however, say nothing more than that.
In judging the adequacy of a sentence the nature of the offence, the
circumstances of its commission, the age and character of the offender,
injury to individuals or to society, effect of the punishment on the
offender, eye to correction and reformation of the offender, are some ·
amongst many other factors which would be ordinarily taken into consideration by courts. Trial courts in this country already over-burdened.
with work have lrardly any time to set apart for sentencing reflection ..
This aspect, is missed or deliberately ignored by accused lest a
possible plea for reduction of sentei11ce may be considered as weakening his defence. In a good system of administration of criminal justice
pre-sentence investigation may be of great sociological value. Throughout the world humanitarianism is permeating i'11to penology and the
courts are expected to discharge their appropriate roks.
•
!
}
, .
)
'I
RAMASHRAYA v. M. P. STATE (Goswami, !.)
715
The appellant is a youngman of about 30 years. He is an educated
person who was employed in Government service. But for the forgery
he could have been tried in the court of a first class Magistrate for the
offence under section 409 IPC and in that case the maximum sentence
of imprisonment would have been two years' rigorous imprisonment.
On the face of the High Court's judgment, as noticed above, the part
played by the appellant in the forgery is rather a little obscure. The
appdlant is sure to lose his employment under the Government. Them
is already indignity heaped upon him on account of conviction.
He
has no opportunity to commit such offence as a Government servant
in the future.
Any sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him will
be a deterrent to others similarly disposed in such unlawful pursuits.
The appellant was refused bail in this Court and he is said to have
served about nine months in prison.
While we do not minimise the seriousness of the offences, having
regard to the circumstances mentioned above, we are of opinion that
it will meet the ends of justice in this case if we order, which we do,
that the appellant's sentence be reduced to one year's rigorous imprisonment only and in addition to a fine of Rs. 500 only, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appeal is partly allowed with
modification of the sentence as ordered.
P.H.P.
A.ppeal partly allowed.
B
c