CHANI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 305 · Decided: 06-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

CHANI 
v. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
JULY 6, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Ss. 360, 361/Probation of Offenders 
Act, 1958; Section 4: 
A 
B 
Modification of judgment delivered by High Court in a criminal appeal- C 
Section 4 of the Probation Act vis-a-vis Section 360 of the Code-Applicability 
of-Held: Where provisions of the Probation Act applicable, Section 360 of 
the Code should not be pressed into service, otherwise it would result in 
highly undesirable consequences not intended by the legislature-Courts could 
apply provisions of one of these beneficial Acts by assigning special reasons D 
thereof-Enforcement of provisions of Probation Act in some area excludes 
the applicability of the provisions of Ss. 360 and 361 of the Code-Though the 
High Court is right in holding that no provision exists which af/ow modification 
of the judgment in a criminal appeal but in the peculiar circumstances of the 
case, the High Court is directed to consider the application for modification E 
under either of th? Acts-Special Clauses Act-Section 8(1). 
The question which arose for determination by this Court in these 
appeals was as to whether the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act 
and Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be enforced 
simultaneously or in some particular circumstances. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:l.1. Where the provisions of the Probation Act are applicable 
F 
the employment of se.ction 360 of the Code is not to be made. Jn cases of 
such application, it would be an illegality resulting in highly undesirable G 
consequences, which the legislature wanted to obviate. Yet the legislature 
in its wisdom has obliged the Court under Section 361 of the Code to apply 
one of the other beneficial provisions; be it Section 360 of the Code or the 
provisions of the Probation Act. It is only by providing special reasons 
that their applicability can be withheld by the Court. (309-H; 310-A-B] 
305 
H 
306 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. Two statutes, viz. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the 
Probation Act, with such significant differences in its provisions could not 
be intended to co-exist at the same time in the same area. Such co-existence 
wQuld lead to anomalous results. Tile intention to retain the provisions of 
Section 360 of the Code and the provisions of the Probation Act as 
B applicable at .the same time in a given area cannot be gathered from the 
provisions of Section 360 or any other provision of the Code. Therefore, 
by virtue of Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, where the provisions 
of the Act have been brought into force, the provisions of Section 360 of 
the Code are wholly inapplicable. Enforcement of Probation Act in some 
particular area excludes the applicability of the provisions of Section 360, 
C 361 of the Code in that area. 1310-E-F-G] 
2. Though the High Court is justified in its view that there is no 
provision for modification of the judgment, but considering the peculiar 
circumstances the High Court is directed to consider the application under 
D the Probation Act or Section 360 of the code: as the case may be, so far as 
the appellant is concerned and pass the appropriate order. It is clarified 
that no opinion has been expressed on the merits. 1310-H; 311-A] 
E 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 721 
of 2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.5.2004 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad Bench at Lucknow in Crl.A. No. 276/81 and order 
dt. 31.1.06 in Crl. Misc. Appln. No. 469 of 2006. 
Saurabh Mishra and N. Annapoorani for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
Appellant calls in question legality of the order passed by a learned 
G Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow by 
which three appeals were disposed of rejecting the prayer made for 
modification of the judgment. Criminal Appeal No.492 of 1981 was filed by 
the State of U.P. against the present appellant who had filed Criminal Appeal 
No.276 of 1981. Criminal Appeal No.541 of 1983 was filed by the State of 
U.P. against four other persons who had faced trial before the learned II 
H Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao who directed acquittal of Mohan Lal, 
CHAN! v. STATEOFUTfARPRADESH [PASAYAT,J.] 
--:ioT. 
Bhagwati, Girish and Vinod Kumar who were respondents in Criminal Appeal A 
No.541 o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.