RAMESH DASS versus RAGHU NATH AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 846 · Decided: 14-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1. 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 846 
A 
RAMESH DASS 
' ,A 
II. 
RAGHU NATH AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 313 OF 2008) 
B 
FEBRUARY 14, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
~ ...... 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 148, 323, 324, 325 rlw S. 149/Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Ss. 360 & 361: 
c 
Grievous hurt - Joint liability - Trial Court convicting 
accused persons for offences punishable ulss. 148, 323, 324, 
326r/w S.149 IPC-Sentence reduced by High Court-Convict 
filing Revision Petition -Appeal filed by State for enhancement 
of sentence - Dismissed by High Court directing release of 
D accused persons on probation u/s. 360 Cr.PC. - Correctness 
of - Held: Incorrect - Legislature mandates that Courts could 
apply any of the beneficial provisions, either S. 360 of the Code 
or under Probation Act -
Two statutes with significant 
differences could not be intended to co-exist at the same time 
E - In terms of provisions u/s. 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 
provisions of Probation Act applies, and provisions of S. 360 
of the Code has no application to the facts of the present case 
l> 
-
Matter remitted to High Court to decide the same in 
accordance with law - General Clauses Act -
S. 8(1) -
' " 
F Probation of offenders Act, 1958 - Ss. 3, 4 & 12. 
Respondent-accused persons were convicted by 
'""'( 
trial Court for committing offences punishable ulss. 148, 
323, 324 and 326 r/w s.149 IPC. It also sentenced them to 
imprisonment, imposed fine and directed them to pay 
G compensation to the victims from the amount realised as 
fine. On an appeal filed by the accused persons, Appellate 
-J .. 
Court reduced the sentence in respect of offence 
punishable uls.323 rlw S.149 IPC to three years. Accused 
persons filed Revision Petition for quashing the judgment 
H 
846 
RAMESH DASS v. RAGHU NATH AND ORS. 
847 
j__ 
and order of conviction of the trial Court and State filed A 
appeal for enhancement of the sentence. The High Court 
dismissed both the petitions but modified the judgment 
of the Courts below directing release of the accused 
persons on probation u/s.360 Cr.P.C. and enhanced the 
fine. Hence the present appeals filed by the informant. 
B 
Informant contended that the direction given by the 
.:A-.. 
High Court cannot be maintained; that since the 
Probation of Offenders Act is applicable to the State of 
Haryana, Section 360 is not applicable; and that in any 
event, life imprisonment is provided for an offence c 
punishable under Section 326 IPC. So, Section 360 of the 
Code also has no application. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Enforcement of Probation Act in some .D 
particular area excludes the applicability of the provisions 
...... 
of Sections 360, 361 of the Code in that area. (Para - 7) 
[852-B] 
Chhanni v. State of U.P (2006 (5) SCC 396) and Daljit E 
Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (2006 (6) SCC 159 -
relied on. 
Jagdev Singh vs. State of Punjab (1973) SCC (Crl.) 977) 
- referred to. 
1.2 Where the provisions of the Probation Act are F 
) 
applicable the employment of Section 360 of the Code is 
not to be made. In cases of such application, it would be 
an illegality resulting in highly undesirable consequences, 
which the legislature, who gave birth to the Probation Act 
and the Code, wanted to obviate. Yet the legislature in its G 
'"' ' 
wisdom has obliged the Court under Section 361 of the 
,,. 
Code to apply one of.the other beneficial provis·ions; 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. (Para - 5) 
H 
1 
848 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A [851-A, B & C] 
~ 
1.3 Section 360 of the Code does not provide for any 
role for Probation Officers in assisting the Courts in 
relation to supervision and other matters while Probation 
B 
Act does make such a provision. While Section 12 of the 
Probation Act states that the person found guilty of an 
offence and dealt with under Section 3 or 4 of the 
Probation Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, 
,.Jc 
attached to conviction of an offence under any law, the 
Code does not contain parallel provision. Two statutes 
c 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 provisions of Section 360 of the Code and 
the provisions of the Probation Act as applicable at
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.