LexSTATE THROUGH S.P., NEW DELHI versus RATAN LAL ARORA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE THROUGH S.P., NEW DELHI A \I. RATAN LAL ARORA APRIL 26, 2004 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAY AT, JJ.] B Probation of Offenders Act, 1958-Section 18-Prevention of Corruption Act, 198811947-Sections 1315(2)-General Clauses Act, 1897-Section 8- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 360-Act of 1947 prohibiting C release of convict on probation-Old Act repealed by Act of 1988-Conviction and sentence under Act of 1988-Grant of release on probation under section 360 Cr.P.C.-Justification of-Held: In view of Section 8 of 1897 Act when an Act is repealed and re-enacted unless different intention is expressed by the legislature, reference to the repealed Act would be considered as reference to the provisions of re-enacted Act-On and from date of extension and D enforcement of the provisions of Probation Act to Delhi, powers under section 562 of old Code repealed and replaced by Section 360, as such Section 360 cannot be invoked or applied-Further, in view of Section 18 of 1958 Act making the. Probation Act inapplicable to Section 5(2) of 1947 Act which corresponds to Section 13 of 1988 Act, the principles enunciated under the Probation Act cannot be applied to conviction under Section 13(2) of 1988 Act-Interpretation of Statutes. E' Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 360-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 7 and 13(2)-0.lfence-Sentence under the sections-Sections providing for minimum sentence-Release on probation- F Permissibility of-Held: Since the statute prescribes minimum sentence in 1 addition to maximum sentence, the Court cannot show any leniency below -the minimum sentence stipulated in such cases-Thus, grant of benefit of probation not permissible. Respondent-employee ofVidyut Board demanded and accepted bribe from G a consumer. Trial Court convicted the respondent under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and passed a sentence of 20 months . rigorous impl'.isonment and fine of Rs. 2000 with default stipulation; and also convicted under Section 13(2) and passed a sentence of 40 months rigorous imprisonment and fine'Of Rs. 2000 with default stipulation. Single Judge of ~l H I 632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R. A High Court upheld the convictions but extended him the ~nefit of release on probation under Section 360 of Cr.P.C., 1973 on the ground that the bar relating to the applicability of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was not operative in respect of offence under the 1988 Act though the old Act of 1947 prohibited release of the convict on probation, and other extenuating B circumstances. Hence the present appeal. Appellant-State contended that the approach of High Court is clearly erroneous; that by operation of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 the bar to probation as contained in the Act of 1947 clearly applies to the Act of 1988; and that the statutory object cannot be diluted by indirectly reducing C the minimum sentence. Respondent-accused contended that in the absence of any bar in the Act, 1988 for extending the benefits provisions of the said Act could have been applied; that Section 18 of the Probation Act stipulated that the Act was inapplicable to Section 5(2) of the old Act of 1947 which corresponds to D Section 13 of the Act of 1988 but no change was made in the Probation Act after the Act was enacted and brought into force in 1988, the provisions of the said Act cannot be applied to the cases under the 1988 Act; that the High Court rightly applied Section 360 of the Code by taking note of the extenuating circumstances; and that after long passage of time, it would nit be proper to send the accused back to jail. E Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The object of section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, is that where any Act or Regulation is repealed and re-enacted, refe~ences in any other enactment to provisions of the repealed former enactment must be F read and construed as references to the re-enacted new provisions,.unless a different intention appears. [637-E-F) 1.2. The references to Section 562 of Cr.P.C., 1898 in Section 19 of the Probation Act, 1958 and to Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in Section 18of1958 Act respectively have to be inevitably read as G references to their corresponding provisions in the newly enacted Code and the Act. Consequently, for the conviction under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.