GULZAR versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 04-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

GUlZAR 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
JANUARY 4, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-s. 379-Theft-Recovery of stolen articles from 
the accused-Possession thereof not explained sufficiently-Held: Accused 
guilty of the offence. 
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958-ss. 3 and 4-Applicability of the 
provisions vis-a-vis s. 360 Cr.P.C-Held: Where the provisions of 1958 Act 
are applicable, employment of s. 360 CPC is not to be made by virtue of 
General Clauses Act-Code a/Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 360-General 
Clauses Act, 1897-s:· 8(1). 
Appellant accused was prosecuted for stealing an attache containing 
about, Rs. 55000 from the possession of the complainant. Attache recovered 
from the accused was identified. The source of Rs. 55000, the possession 
A 
B 
c 
D 
of which was established, was not explained by the accused. The courts 
below on the basis of recovery of the amount and the attache, convicted the 
E 
accused under Section 379 IPC. 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that evidence was not 
sufficient to come to a conclusion about commission of offence under 
Section 379 IPC; and that the effect of Sections 3 and 4 of Probation of 
F 
Offenders Act, 1958 in the background of provision of Section 360 Cr.P.C. 
has not been kept in view. 
Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the 
Court 
HELD: 1. There is no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the 
courts below in analyzing the evidence to fasten the guilt on the accused. 
Prosecution witness had identified the attache which was recovered from 
G 
the possession of the accused. Explanation was offered about the source of 
money and the same was found to be wholly unacceptable. The source of the 
H 
81 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
sum, the possession of which was established, was not explained. 
B 
(Paras 9 and 8] 
(84-F-G] 
2.1. Where the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are 
applicable, the employment of Section 360 Cr.P.C. is not to be made. 
Section 360 Cr.P.C. relates only to persons not under 21 years of age 
convicted for a.n offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for 
a term of seven years or less, to any person under 21 years of age or any 
woman convicted of an offence not punishable with sentence of death or 
imprisonment for life. The scope of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act 
(P.0.Act.) is much wider. It applies to any person found guilty of having 
C 
committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 
Section 360 Cr.P.C. does not provide for. any role for Probation Officers 
in assisting the Courts in relation to supervision and other matters while 
P.O. Act does make such a provision. While Section 12 of the P.O. Act 
states that the person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under 
D 
Section 3 or 4 of the P.O. Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, 
attached to .conviction of an offence under any law, the Cr.P.C. does not 
contain parallel provision. Two statutes with such significant differences 
could not be intended to co-exist at the same time in the same area. Such 
co-existence would lead to anomalous results. The intention to retain the 
E 
F 
G 
H 
provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and the provisions of the P.O. 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 Cr.P.C. Therefore, by 
virtue of Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, where the provisions of 
th~ Act have been brought into force, the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. 
are wholly inapplicable. (Paras 11 and 12) (84-H, 85-C-G) 
2.2. Enforcement of Probation Act in some particular area excludes 
the applicability of the provisions of Sections 360, 361 Cr.P.C.in that area. 
(Para 13] (85-G) 
2.3. The matter is remitted to the High Court to consider whether the 
benefits under the P.O. Act or Section 360 Cr.P.C. can be extended to the 
appellant. [Para 15) (86-D-E) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 
2007. 
-y 
GULZAR v. ST ATE [PASA Y AT, J.] 
83 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2005 of the High Court 
A 
ofMadhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, Indore in Criminal Revision No. 170/2000. 
S.K. Gambhir, Ram Ekbal Roy, Harshvardhan Jha and M.P. Jha for the 
Appellant. 
Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.