Satyam case: plea for leniency on quantum of sentence rejected

A special court trying the Satyam accounting fraud case here today refused to entertain a plea for a lenient view on the quantum of sentence by erstwhile Satyam founder B Ramalinga Raju for his "philanthropic activities", citing that it was a grave offence affecting the reputation of the corporate system and the economy.
Raju and his brother and former Managing Director B Rama Raju in their statements before the court narrated about the "philanthropic activities" done by them through agencies like Emergency Management Research Institute (EMRI 108 services) and Byrraju Foundation.
They further submitted that lakhs of people benefitted on account of their social service and prayed to the court to take a lenient view on quantum of sentence.

The other eight accused also prayed to the court to take a lenient view on the quantum of sentence citing various grounds including old age, ill-health and family depending on them.
Ramalinga Raju and nine others were sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and were imposed fines in the multi-crore rupee accounting fraud case in erstwhile Satyam Computers Services Limited.
Special Judge B V L N Chakravarthi, in his order, said that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, he is of the opinion that the case involved economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracy causing huge loss of investor money which needs to be viewed seriously and considered it as a grave offence affecting the reputation of the corporate system of the country as a whole and the economy of the country.

"It is not a fit case either for invoking provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or taking a lenient view on quantum of sentence," the Special Judge said.

Quoting the observations of the Supreme Court in Dhananjay Chatterejee @ Dhana Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1994, the special judge observed "imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals."
"Justice demands that courts should impose punishment fitting to the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The courts must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of crime and the society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment," he said.

K Surender, counsel for CBI, said the convicts requested the court for taking a lenient view but their pleas did not find favour with the court and, accordingly, the maximum sentence of seven years was given.