Prolonging criminal case for unreasonable period a type of suffering: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said prolonging a criminal case for an unreasonable period was a type of suffering, amounting to mental incarceration for the person facing the proceedings.

Justices N V Anjaria and A S Chandurkar made the observation while reducing a woman's sentence in a corruption case to the actual period undergone.

While confirming her conviction, the bench noted the incident occurred over 22 years ago and the woman was now 75.

It, however, increased the fine imposed on her by Rs 25,000 above the original fine.

"The prolongation of a criminal case for an unreasonable period is in itself a kind of suffering. It amounts to mental incarceration for the person facing such proceedings," the bench said on August 21.

The apex court verdict came on an appeal filed by the woman against the August 2010 verdict of the Madras High Court confirming the trial court order.

The trial court convicted the woman, who served as an inspector of Central Excise, under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced her to undergo one year imprisonment.

It was alleged by the prosecution that in September 2002, she demanded illegal gratification of Rs 300.

The top court said a person, who has appealed against conviction and everyday awaits the fate of litigation, spends time in distress.

"In the present-day system of administration of justice, in which proceedings have often protracted unreasonably and therefore unbearably, the passage of long time itself makes the person suffer a mental agony," the bench said.

It said the process of sentencing by courts was guided by theories such as punitive, deterrent or reformative and noted each school of thought had its own object and purpose to explain sentencing and its utility.

"Amongst these theories, reformative approach has become increasingly acceptable to the modern jurisprudence. Reformation is something always considered progressive," it said.

The bench said when there were mitigating circumstances, the court would lean towards reducing of the sentence and the focus was on the crime and not on the criminal.

"The society and system would nurture the guilt with positivity, while selecting the sentence," it said.

The appellant in the top court gave up the challenge to the conviction and her lawyer requested the court for reduction of sentence.

The bench observed conviction and sentence had respective realms.

"While the conviction would be recorded on the basis of evidence adduced before the court which would establish the implication of the accused in the offence, the guilty person or the convicted when to be awarded a sentence, a host of factors would operate to govern," it said.

The bench noted the woman, a widow, underwent imprisonment for 31 days.

"In the totality of the facts and circumstances, the imprisonment already undergone by her is treated to be adequate sentence," it said.

While increasing the fine amount, the bench ordered it to be paid by September 10.

Upon failure to pay the fine amount, the original order of sentence would kick in and operate, rendering her liable to surrender before the authorities concerned.