Whether court can reduce sentence if legislature has prescribed minimum sentence without discretion?

When the legislature has prescribed minimum sentence without discretion, the same cannot be reduced by the Courts. In such cases, imposition of minimum sentence, be it imprisonment or fine, is mandatory and leaves no discretion to the court. However, sometimes the legislation prescribes a minimum sentence but grants discretion and the courts, for reasons to be recorded in writing, may award a lower sentence or not award a sentence of imprisonment. Such discretion includes the discretion not to send the accused to prison. Minimum sentence means a sentence which must be imposed without leaving any discretion to the court. It means a quantum of punishment which cannot be reduced below the period fixed. If the sentence can be reduced to nil, then the statute does not prescribe a minimum sentence. A provision that gives discretion to the court not to award minimum sentence cannot be equated with a provision which prescribes minimum sentence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Before Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy, JJ.)

Mohd. Hashim v.  State of U.P. & Ors. 

Criminal Appeal No. 1218 of 2016

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No. 6104 of 2014)

Decided on November 28, 2016

Citation:2016 SCC OnLine SC 1440,(2017) 2 SCC 198

Print Page

Whether Courts Can Exercise ‘Judicial Discretion’ Against Statute Or Rules?

 We have examined the possibility of granting
relief to the Appellants by taking into account the facts
and circumstances of this case. The Appellants
participated in the selection which was initially for 38
posts which later increased to 74 posts. They could
not be appointed due to the judgment of the High
Court which directed the selection to be only for 38
posts. In view of there being no fault on the part of
the Appellants, we examined whether we could
exercise our judicial discretion to direct their
appointments. We realise that any such direction
given by us for their appointments would be contrary
to the Rules. Judicial discretion can be exercised by a
Court only when there are two or more possible lawful
solutions. In any event, Courts cannot give any
direction contrary to the Statute or Rules made
thereunder in exercise of judicial discretion. It will be

useful to reproduce from Judicial Discretion (1989) by
Aharon Barak which is as follows:
“Discretion assumes the freedom to choose among
several lawful alternatives. Therefore, discretion
does not exist when there is but one lawful option.
In this situation, the judge is required to select that
option and has no freedom of choice. No discretion
is involved in the choice between a lawful act and
an unlawful act. The judge must choose the lawful
act, and he is precluded from choosing the unlawful
act. Discretion, on the other hand, assumes the
lack of an obligation to choose one particular
possibility among several.”
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 8334 of 2013
Anurag Kumar Singh & Ors.

Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Dated:October 5, 2016

Print Page

What is scope of appellate Court while deciding appeal against order granting or refusing injunctions?

Scope of appellate Court while deciding appeal against

order granting or refusing injunctions. Whether the Appellate

Court would interfere with the impugned order only because a

different view was possible in the matter that the trial Court had

not considered the three principles governing the grant of

injunction ?

Held :- Relying upon the judgment in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India

Pvt. Ltd., [1990 Supp SCC 727], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court,

Bench at Goa held that no fault whatsoever could be found with the

findings recorded by the learned Trial Court on the touchstone of

the principles culled out in Wander Ltd. (supra). The trial Court

had properly weighed the probabilities, apart from the factum of

irreparable loss and injury which would occasion to the parties and

passed the order as he did which does not call for any interference

in appeal.

 In the case of Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., [1990

Supp SCC 727], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “in such

appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of

discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own

discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have

been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where

the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant

or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise

of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court

will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion

different from the one reached by the court below if the one

reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The

appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with

the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if

it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come

to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by

the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner, the fact that the

appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify

interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion.”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Appeal From Order No. 29 of 2016.

Decided On: 04.08.2016

Lilly Sequeira Vs. Aires Inaudino Purificacao De Basilio Dias

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Nutan D. Sardessai, J.

Citation: 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5229

Print Page

Leading caselaw on purposive interpretation of statutes

 The principle of 'purposive interpretation' or
'purposive construction' is based on the understanding that the Court is
supposed to attach that meaning to the provisions which serve the
'purpose' behind such a provision. The basic approach is to ascertain
what is it designed to accomplish? To put it otherwise, by interpretative
process the Court is supposed to realise the goal that the legal text is
designed to realise. As Aharan Barak puts it:
“Purposive interpretation is based on three components:
language, purpose, and discretion. Language shapes the
range of semantic possibilities within which the interpreter
acts as a linguist. Once the interpreter defines the range,
he or she chooses the legal meaning of the text from
among the (express or implied) semantic possibilities. The
semantic component thus sets the limits of interpretation
by restricting the interpreter to a legal meaning that the
text can bear in its (public or private) language.”
10) Of the aforesaid three components, namely, language, purpose and
discretion 'of the Court', insofar as purposive component is concerned,
this is the ratio juris, the purpose at the core of the text. This purpose is
the values, goals, interests, policies and aims that the text is designed to
actualize. It is the function that the text is designed to fulfil.
Aharan Barak – Purposive Interpretation in Law
11) We may also emphasize that the statutory interpretation of a provision is
never static but is always dynamic. Though literal rule of interpretation,
till some time ago, was treated as the 'golden rule', it is now the doctrine
of purposive interpretation which is predominant, particularly in those
cases where literal interpretation may not serve the purpose or may lead
to absurdity. If it brings about an end which is at variance with the
purpose of statute, that cannot be countenanced. Not only legal process
thinkers such as Hart and Sacks rejected intentionalism as a grand
strategy for statutory interpretation, and in its place they offered
purposivism, this principle is now widely applied by the Courts not only in
this country but in many other legal systems as well.


REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8731 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.19617 of 2015)
SHAILESH DHAIRYAWAN …APPELLANT

VERSUS
MOHAN BALKRISHNA LULLA ...RESPONDENT

R.F. Nariman, J.
Dated;OCTOBER 16, 2015.
Citation;(2016)3 SCC619

Print Page