Supreme Court of India
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus S.R. RANGADAMAPPA
- Decided
- 1 October 1982
- Judges listed
- O. CHINNAPPA REDDY
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1983] 1 S.C.R. 496 · 1982 INSC 68
- Also cited as
- AIR 1982 SC 1492
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
CHINNAPPA REDDY. J. The respondent was charged with an offence under Section 34 (a) of tlie Andhra Pradesh Excise Act on the allegation that he was 'found in posses~ion' of a quantity pf eight litres of illicitly distilled, arrack, an intoxicant, in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, made under the Act. , The learned fodical First Class Magistrate convicted him and sentenced hitn to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, which was the minimum sentence that could be awarded for an offence under Section ·34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act On an )IPPeal preferred by the respondent, ,the Sessions Judge, Anantapur confirmed the conviction and sentence. The re8pondent preferred a revision petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge who heard the revision confirmed the conviction, But, on the question of s¢ntence, he observed :
p. 496, margin F
"Mr. T. Ramulu, appearing for the petitioner who has filed this revision through jail, has submitted that the. petitioner 1s aged 30 Years and is a first offender aµd he has already served a sentence of about 10 months and that the senten.ce may be appropriately modified. It is true that .under the A. P. Exci.se Act, a stat.utory minimum ' sentence is prescribed. But having regard to the submis- . sions · made above, ' I feel ·the interest· ·of justice. will be satisfied if the ··sentence of imprisonment imposed·. against the petitioner ,is reduced to the period already
p. 497, margin A
undergone and if the fine of Rs. 50/ ·, imposed is set .aside. · . - The revision is dismissed subject to the modification as stated above."
p. 497, margin C
We ar( unable to understand why the High Court reduced the sentence. The statute prescribes a . minimum sentence. ·It does not provide for any exceptions and does not vest the Court with any discretion · to award a sentence below t~e prescribed minimum under any special circumstances. The learned judge has himself noticed that the sentence imposed is\the statutory mh1imutn. ' Having noticed that the statute prescribes a \minimum sentence for the offence, the •High Court · has ununderstably reduced the sentence of imprisonment to less than the minimum permissible. The High Court wzs clearly in error in doing so. We· think •we have said.enough to correct.the error. It is unnecessary .to pursue the matter further by granting special leave; ·The petition is dis· missed with the above observations. P.B.R. Petition dismissed.
p. 497, margin C