SHYAM LAL VERMA Vs C.B.I
Bench: P. SATHASIVAM,JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000171-000171 / 2013
Diary number: 16561 / 2012
Advocates: ASHOK MATHUR Vs
ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.171 OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 4378 OF 2012)
SHYAM LAL VERMA ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ....RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellant is a retired employee of Post Office.
The incident occurred in 1993-94. The allegation against him
is that 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 1988.
After fullfleged trial, the Trial Court convicted
him under the above mentioned Sections. However, instead of
awarding 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 peace and good behaviour during
this period.
...2/-
Page 2
-2-
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
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.
Questioning the order of the High Court sentencing
him, as stated above, the accused preferred the present
appeal by way of special leave.
Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-CBI.
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. This was reversed by the High Court and
ultimately imposed substantive sentence of one year.
It is not in dispute that the issue raised in this
appeal has been considered by this Court in 2004 (4) SCC 590
– State Through SP, New Delhi Versus Ratan lal Arora wherein
in similar circumstances, this Court held that since Section
7 as well as Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
...3/-
Page 3
-3-
provide for a minimum sentence of six months and one year
respectively in addition to the maximum sentences as well as
imposition of fine, in such circumstances claim for granting
relief under the Probation of Offenders Act is not
permissible. In other words, in cases where a specific
provision prescribed a minimum sentence, the provisions of
the Probation Act cannot be invoked. Similar view has been
expressed in 2006 (11) SCC 473 – State Represented by
Inspector of Police, Pudukottai, T.N. Vs. A. Parthiban.
In view of the settled legal position, we find no
valid ground to interfere with the impugned order of the High
Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the
appellant shall surrender and has to undergo remaining
period of sentence. His bail bonds executed pursuant to our
order dated 05.07.2012 shall stand cancelled.
....................J [P. SATHASIVAM]
NEW DELHI ....................J. JANUARY 21, 2013 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]