Statute; Court Cannot Altogether Ignore Substantive Provisions

Contents

Statute : The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case titled as, “A.B. Bhaskar Rao vs. Inspector of Police, CBI Vishakhapatnam”, reported as, “(2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 259, held as under : ­

# Statute

  • (a) When the Court issues notice confining to particular aspect / sentence, arguments will be heard only to that extent unless some extraordinary circumstance / material is shown to the Court for arguing the matter on all aspects.
  • (b) Long delay in disposal of appeal or any other factor may not be a ground for reduction of sentence, particularly, when the statute prescribes minimum sentence. In other cases where no such minimum sentence is prescribed, it is open to the Court to consider the delay and its effect and the ultimate decision.
  • (c) In a case of corruption by public servant, quantum of amount is immaterial. Ultimately, it depends upon the conduct of the delinquent and proof regarding demand and acceptance established by the prosecution.
  • (d) Merely because the delinquent lost his job due to conviction under the Act may not be a mitigating circumstance for reduction of sentence, particularly, when the statute prescribes minimum sentence.
  • (e) Though Article 142 of the Constitution gives winder power to this Court, waiver of certain period as prescribed in the statute imposing lesser sentence than the minimum prescribed is not permissible.
  • (f) An order, which this Court can make in order to do complete justice between the parties, must not only be consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but also it cannot even be inconsistent with the substantive provisions of the relevant statute. In other words, this Court cannot altogether ignore the substantive provisions of the relevant statute. In other words, this Court cannot altogether ignore the substantive of a statute.
  • (g) In exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court generally does not pass an order in contravention of or ignoring the statutory provisions nor is the power exercised merely on sympathy.
  • (h) The powder under Article 142 of the Constitution is a constitutional power and not restricted by statutory enactments. However, this Court would not pass any order under Article 142 which would amount to supplanting the substantive law applicable or ignoring statutory provisions dealing with the subject. In other words, acting under Article 142, this Court cannot pass an order or grant relief which is totally inconsistent or goes against the substantive or statutory enactments pertaining to the case.
  • (i) The powers under Article 142 are not meant to be exercised when their exercise may come directly in conflict with what has been expressly provided or in a statute dealing expressly with the subject.

Comments