STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus MAN SINGH

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 570 · Decided: 04-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
MAN SINGH
(Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 2011)
NOVEMBER 04, 2019
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Power of High
Court u/s. 482 CrPC to alter the sentence passed by the High Court
itself – Respondent was prosecuted for committing offences
punishable u/ss. 468, 471 & 419 of IPC – It was alleged that
respondent forged a certificate and procured appointment to the
post of Buffalo attendant in the veterinary department – Trial Court
convicted respondent u/ss. 468, 471 & 419 IPC and sentenced him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year – On the issue of
sentence, the respondent urged the benefit of probation of offenders
Act, 1958, however, same was declined by the Trial court – Appeal
was dismissed by the Appellate Court – In criminal revision, High
Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence
from one year to the period already undergone – Respondent filed
the petition u/s. 482 CrPC – High Court extended the benefit of
Probation Act and directed that sentence which accused has already
undergone, would not affect his career – On appeal, held: There is
no power to review granted to the Courts under CrPC – As soon as
the High Court had disposed of the original revision petition, upheld
the conviction, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone,
it became functus officio and, as such, it could not have entertained
the petition u/s. 482 CrPC for altering the sentence – After sentence
had been imposed and served and fine paid, there was no question
of granting probation – Further, there was violation of the provisions
of s.4 of the Probation Act, which mandates that before passing the
order of probation, it is essential to obtain report of the probation
officer concerned – Also, High Court had no jurisdiction to pass
an order that the employee be retained in service, as it is settled that
grant of probation under the Act does not have bearing so far as
the service of such employee is concerned – The employee cannot
   [2019] 13 S.C.R. 570
570
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
571
claim a right to continue in service on the ground he was released
on probation – Thus, order of the High Court set aside – Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958 – s.4.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  It is well-settled law that the High Court has no
jurisdiction to review its order either under Section 362 or under
Section 482 of CrPC.  The inherent power under Section 482
CrPC cannot be used by the High Court to reopen or alter an
order disposing of a petition decided on merits.  After disposing
of a case on merits, the Court becomes functus officio and Section
362 CrPC expressly bars review and specifically provides that
no Court after it has signed its judgment shall alter or review the
same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Recall of
judgment would amount to alteration or review of judgment which
is not permissible under Section 362 CrPC.  It cannot be
validated by the High Court invoking its inherent powers.
[Para 5] [574-E-F]
2. There is no doubt that the High Court had no power to
entertain the petition under Section 482 CrPC and alter the
sentence imposed by it.  Further, the manner in which the
probation has been granted is not at all legal.  The trial court had
given reasons for not giving the benefit of probation.  When the
High Court was deciding the revision petition against the order
of conviction, it could have, after calling for a report of the
Probation Officer in terms of Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 granted probation.  Even in such a case, it
had to give reasons why it disagreed with the trial court and the
first appellate court on the issue of sentence.  The High Court,
in fact, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone
meaning thereby that the conviction was upheld and the sentence
was imposed.  After sentence had been imposed and served and
fine paid, there was no question of granting probation. [Para 6]
[574-G; 575-A-B]
3. Another error is that the order has been passed in
violation of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act which mandates
that before releasing any offender on probation of good conduct,
the Court must obtain a report from the Probation Officer and
can then order his release on his entering bonds with or without
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. MAN SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
sure

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