DALJIT SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY HOME AFFAIRS

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 115 · Decided: 27-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DALJIT SINGH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY HOME AFFAIRS 
JULY 27, 2006 
(ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: 
ss. 360 and 36//s.4-Applicability of-Held, legislature in its wisdom 
has obliged the Court uls 361 of the Code to apply one of the two beneficial C 
provisions i.e. s.360 of the Code or provisions of the Probation Act-It is only 
by providing special reasons that their applicability can be withheld by the 
Court-However, where provisions of Probation Act are applicable, s.360 of 
the Code is not to be applied-Enforcement of Probation Act, in some particular 
area excludes applicability of provisions of ss. 360 and 361 of the Code- D 
Comparative ana(vsis of provisions of Probation Act and s.360 of the Code 
made-Since High Court has not considered the issue relating to applicability 
of these provisions, ma/ler remitted to it for consideration of this issue-
Genera/ Clauses Act, 1897-s.8(1)-Penal Code, 1860-ss. 324134 and 3231 
34. 
Six persons including the four appellants were prosecuted on the 
allegation that they in furtherance of common object of the unlawful 
assembly, attempted a murderous assault on PW-3 and caused injuries 
E 
on PW-4. The trial court acquitted two of them of all charges and 
convicted the appellants under ss. 307 /34, 324/34 and 323/34 IPC. On F 
appeal, the High Court acquitted them of the charge u/s 307/34, but 
maintained the conviction and sentence of one year's imprisonment for 
offence u/s 324/34 IPC. It also upheld the conviction of the appellants 
u/s 323/34 I PC. 
In the present appeals, counsel for the appellants confined his G 
arguments only to non-consideration by High Court of applicability of 
provisions of s.4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and s.360 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court, the 
115 
H 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Court 
HELD: I. The legislature in its wisdom has obliged the Court under 
Section 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply one of the 
two beneficial provisions; be it Section 360 of the Code or the provisions 
of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It is only by providing special 
B reasons that their applicability can be withheld by the Court. 1118-A-Bf 
2.1. Where the provisions of the Prohibition Act are applicable the 
employment of Section 360 of the Code is not to be made, otherwise it 
would be an illegality resulting in highly undesirable consequences, which 
the legislature, who gave birth to the Probation Act and the Code, wanted 
C to obviate. Enforcement of Probation Act in some particular area excludes 
the applicability of the provisions of Section 360 and 361 of the Code, in 
that area. Two statutes with significant differences could not be intended 
to co-exist at the same time in the same area. 1118-A; E-GI 
D 
2.2. The intention to retain the provisions of Section 360 of the Code 
and the provisions of the Probation Act as 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 1897, where the provisions of the Probation Act have 
been brought into force, the provisions of Section 360 of the Code are 
E wholly inapplicable. I 118-F-G I 
3. The High Court has not considered the issue relating to 
applicability of the provisions aforenoted. Therefore, the High Court would 
consider the application under the Probation Act or Section 360 of the 
Code, as the case may be, so far as the appellants are concerned and pass 
F appropriate order within three months from the receipt of this order. 
1119-AI 
G 
CRIMINAL APPEALLAT JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 797 
of 2006. 
From the J11dgment dated 26.10.2005 of the High Court of Punjab and 
Haryana at Chandigarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 24-B of 1993. 
R.K. Talwar and S.L. Aneja for the Appellants. 
Manu Mridul, Varinder Kumar Sharma and Arun K. Sinha for the 
H Respondent. 
DALJ!TSINGH "·STATE OF PUN.JAB THROUGH SECRETARY HOME AFFAIRS [PASAYAT.J.] 117 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
ARIJ IT PASAYA T, J. Leave granted. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single 
Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High.Court. The appellants had filed Criminal 
Appeal No. 24-SB of 1993 questioning the co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.