Murari Lal vs State of U.P.

Hari Swarup, J.—This revision was admitted on the question of sentence. The prosecution case in brief, was that on 10-4-1974 the accused who was an employee of the Railway came out of the NSD when he was checked as he was suspected to be carrying with him some Railway property. On search being made he was found to be in possession of a bearing brass piece weighing 3.250kg. and measuring 7" x 4". It was found concealed under the langot underneath the trousers. The property was identified to be the Railway property and the circumstances in which it was recovered from the applicant proved that he was in possession of the Railway property unlawfully.

Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 provides for penalty for unlawful possession of railway property. The possession is punishable.

(a) for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees.

The courts below have already awarded the minimum sentence of imprisonment. Learned Counsel contended that there were special and adequate reasons for reducing the sentence below the minimum. The reasons according to him are: (1) that the applicant will lose his employment, and (2) that he has a large family to support. In my opinion neither of these two can be regarded as providing a special and adequate reason for awarding a sentence below the minimum. The applicant''s chance of having to face adverse consequences in his employment can be no reason for the award to him of a sentence below the minimum. Being an employee of the railway administration he was expected to show better sense of integrity. Special and adequate reason must relate to circumstances in which the offence was committed, i.e., the circumstances in which the property came into the possession of the accused or the compelling forces which led him to obtain or possess the property; the special and adequate reasons may also be relateable to the age or health of the accused. But the matters which have nexus neither to the circumstances leading to the commission of offence nor to the personality of the committer of the offence, can provide no ground for awarding a sentence below the minimum prescribed by law. The supporting of a family is nothing special in the case of the accused and cannot therefore provide a special reason for reducing the sentence. The maintenance of family is the liability and responsibility of every individual who is the earning member.

In the result the revision fails and is dismissed.