Judges of high courts have been exercising much discretion in awarding sentences for various offences by reducing the sentences awarded by lower courts. For example, the High Court of Bombay let off a person convicted in an acid attack case with a sentence which amounted to 35 days in gaol.

In some instances, the courts have even awarded sentences which are lower than the minimum sentences mandated by law. The Supreme Court hasn’t been too pleased with this trend and it has asked judges not to ordinarily exercise their discretion so as to go below the minimum sentence prescribed by Parliament saying, “If Parliament has provided  for a minimum sentence, the same should ordinarily be imposed save and except in some exceptional cases…”

A Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices  S B Sinha and Cyriac Joseph said this in a case under the Essential Commodities Act. A kerosene dealer who had been found to commit irregularities in the storage of kerosene appealled to the apex court for leniency after being sentenced to six months in gaol. He argued that the Essential Commodities Act itself provides for a sentence of less than six months if the Judge finds special reasons in favour of the accused. Finding no such reasons, the court dismissed his appeal.

The Supreme Court also said: “Ordinarily, the legislative sentencing policy as laid in some Special Acts where the parliamentary intent has been expressed in unequivocal terms should be applied. Sentence of less than the minimum prescribed by Parliament may be imposed only in exceptional cases.”