The appellant was convicted on his own plea of a corrupt transaction with agent c/s 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, Cap. 400. He was sentenced to imprisonment for two years under the Minimum Sentences Act. It would appeal
Held: With respect to sentence, “the age of the appellant is given I the charge sheet as seventy seven years, though the magistrate in his ‘Judgment’ stated that he appeared to him to be between sixty and seventy years old. The offences, or, rather, offences, were, as noted, disclosed to the police by the appellant himself. It would appear, as conceded by learned state Attorney, that he merely acted as a passive mediator. It is thus apparent that the appellant, because of his relationship to the magistrate before whom they were facing charges, was merely used by these three men to pass the bribes to him, and because of his advanced age – he may well even be senile – he allowed himself to be so used, as there is nothing to indicate that the
appellant was deriving any benefit or advantage from the whole transaction. He was therefore, to borrow the terminology from another context, a mere conduit pipe. The combination of these circumstances, to my mind, constitutes special circumstances which quality the appellant for the exercise of the court’s discretion within the meaning of section 5(2) of the Minimum Sentences Act. In the result … the sentence imposed is set aside and, in view of the very advanced age of the appellant, and taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances, there is imposed in respect of each conviction such term of imprisonment, to run concurrently with one another, as will result In the immediate discharge of the appellant”.
