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]