SHYAM LAL VERMA versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 398 · Decided: 21-01-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM, J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 398 
SHYAM LAL VERMA 
v. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
(Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2013) 
JANUARY 21, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Offences under -
Applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act - Appellant, a 
C retired employee of Post Office - Allegation that he 
misappropriated money - Trial court convicted appellant ul 
s.477A /PC rlw s.13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act - However, instead of awarding sentence, the 
trial court released the appellant under the Probation of 
D Offenders Act - High Court allowed appeal of the CBI and 
sentenced appellant to one year under ss.477 A /PC and ul 
s.13(1 }(c) read with s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 
for a further period of o_ne year - Both sentences directed to 
run concurrently - Whether the Probation of Offenders Act is 
E applicable to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 
- Held: Since s. 7 as well as s. 13 of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act provide for a minimum sentence of six months 
and one year respectively in addition to the maximum 
sentences as well as imposition of fine, claim for grant of relief 
F under the Probation of Offenders Act is not permissible - In 
cases where a specific provision prescribes a minimum 
sentence, the provisions of the Probation Act cannot be 
invoked - No valid ground to interfere with the impugned order 
of the High Court - Appellant to surrender and to undergo 
G remaining period of sentence - Probation of Offenders Act, 
1958 - Penal Code, 1860 - s.477A. 
H 
State Through SP, New Delhi v. Ratan la/ Arora 2004 (4) 
SCC 590: 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 631 and State Represented 
398 
SHYAM LAL VERMA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 
399 
INVESTIGATION 
by Inspector of Police, Pudukottai T.N. v. A Parthiban 2006 
A 
(11) SCC 473: 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 35 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 631 
relied on 
2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 35 
relied on 
Para 8 
Para 8 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 171 of 2013. 
B 
Frqrn the Judgment & Order dated 13.03.2012 of the Hi~h c 
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 291 ·of 
2004. 
Fakhruddin, Raj Kishor Choudhary Sheeba Fakhruddin 
Adil, Surya Kamal Mishra Ashok. Mathur for the Appellant. 
Prakriti Purnima, T.A. Khan, B.V. Bairam Das, Arvind 
Kumar Sharma for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
D 
E 
2. The appellant is a retired employee of Post Office. The 
incident occurred in 1993-94. The allegation against him is that 
F 
he misappropriated to the extent of Rs.1,35,240/· (Rupees one 
lakh thirty five thousand and two hundred forty). The employees 
of various departments deposited their amount, but the 
appellant did not remit the amount and failed to make entry in 
the ledger. He was charged under Section 477-A IPC read with 
Section 3(1 )(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 
G 
1988. 
3. After fullfleged trial, the Trial Court convicted him under 
the above mentioned Sections. However, instead of awarding 
H 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 
A sentence, the Trial Court released the appellant under the 
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on executing a personal bond 
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnishing two sureties each of 
the like amount for a period of one year. He was also directed 
to maintain pe-ace and good behaviour during this period . 
. B 
4. Aggrieved by the above decision of the Trial Court, the 
CBI filed an appeal before the High Court. Admittedly, the 
accused did not file any appeal challenging the order of 
conviction. By the impugned order, the High Court allowed the 
appeal of the CBI and sentenced him for a period of one year 
C under Sections 477-A IPC and under Section 13(1}(c) read with 
Section 13(2) for a further period of one year. Both the 
sentences were directed to run concurrently. 
5. Questioning the order of the High Court sentencing him, 
D as stated above, the accused preferred the present appeal by 
way of special leave. 
E 
6. Heard learned seni.or counsel appearing on behalf of 
the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 
respondent-CBI. 
7. The only point for consideration in this appeal is, whether 
the Probation of Offenders Act is applicable to offences under 
the Prevention of Corruption Act? The Trial Court applied 
Probation of Offenders Act and sentenced him accordingly. 
F Th

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