THE STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUKOTTAI, TAMILNADU versus A. PARTHIBAN

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 35 · Decided: 09-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
THE STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUKOTTAI, 
TAMILNADU 
v. 
A. PARTHIBAN 
OCTOBER 9, 2006 
[ ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND R. V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.) 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 
J 3(l)(d). 
Offences under Ss. 7 and 13(2) rlw S. 13(l)(d)-Conviction under-
Release on probation-Justifiability of-Accused convicted under S. 7 & 
13(2) rlw S. J 3(J)(d)-Accused was sentenced to undergo RI for six months 
and to pay afine of Rs. 5001- for the earlier offence and RI for one year and 
A 
B 
c 
to pay a fine of Rs. 1, 0001- for the latter offence-High Court held that the D 
conviction under S. 13(2) read with S. 13(/)(d) was n~t maintainable but 
confirmed the conviction under S. 7-High Court further held that for a single 
act it would not be proper to convict the accused under both the Sections-
Applying the provisions of S. 360 Cr.P.C. the accused was directed to be 
released on probation-Correctness of-Held: Eve1y acceptance of illegal 
gratification whether preceded by demand or not, would be covered by S. 7 E 
of the Act-But if the acceptance of an illegal gratification is in pursuance 
of a demand by the public servant, then it would also fall under S. J 3(l)(d) 
of the A ct-If an offence falls under both Ss. 7 and 13 ( 1 )( d) and the court 
wants to award only the minimum punishment, then the punishment would 
be one year--..'iince the P.C. Act was enacted after the Probation Act, there F 
is no scope for extending the benefit of the Probation Act to the accused-
Hence, the High Court erred in extending the benefit or probation to the 
accused even under S. 360 Cr.P.C.-The sentences of imprisonment shall be 
six months under S. 7 and one year under S. 13(2), both the sentences to run 
concurrently-Probation of Offenders Act, 1988, S. 18-Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973, S. 360. 
G 
The respondent-accused was convicted for offences punishable under 
Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption 
Act, 1988. The respondent was sentenced to undergo RI for six months and 
35 
H 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the earlier offence and RI for one year and to pay 
" 
a fine of Rs. I, 000/- for the latter offence. 
In appeal, the High Court held that the conviction under Section 13(2) 
read with Section 13(1 )( d) of the Act was not maintainable but confirmed the 
conviction under Section 7 of the Act. The High Court further held that for 
B a single act it would not be proper to convict the accused under both the 
Sections. Provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
were applied and the respondent was directed to be released on probation under 
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Hence the appeal. 
c 
D 
The following question arose before the Court:-
Whether the alleged act is an offence and if the answer is in the 
affirmative, whether it is capable of being constructed as an offence under 
one or more provisions? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Every acceptance of illegal gratification whether preceded by 
demand or not, would be covered by Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption 
Act, 1988. But if the acceptance of an illegal gratification is in pursuance of a 
demand by the public servant, then it would also fall under Section 13(1 )(d) of 
E the Act. The act alleged against the respondent of demanding and receiving 
illegal gratification constitutes an offence both under Section 7 and under 
Section 13(I)(d) of the Act. The offence being a single transaction, but falling 
under two different Sections, the offender cannot be made liable for double 
penalty. But the High Court committed an error in holding that a single act of 
receiving an illegal gratification, where there was demand and acceptance, 
F cannot bean offence both under Section 7 and under Section 13(1)(d)ofthe Act. 
As the offence is one which falls under two different Sections providing different 
punishments, the offender should not be punished with a more severe 
punishment than the court award to the person for any one of the two offences. 
In this case, a minimum punishment under Section 7 is six months and the 
G minimum punishment under Section 13(l)(d) is one year. If an offence falls under 
both Sections 7 and 13(I)(d) and the court wants to award only the minimum 
punishment, then the punishment would be one year. [41-B, C, D, E) 
State of J & K v. Vinay Nand, [2001 [ 2, SCC 504 refer

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