CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench

State of T.N. vs Kaliaperumal

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 8 September 2005 · Citation: (2006) 3 ACR 3419 : (2005) 12 SCC 473

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tarun Chatterjee, J · H. K. Sema, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 360 · Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(1), 13(2), 7 · Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — Section 18
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 1307 of 2002
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 369 words

H.K. Sema, J.—This appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras dated 28.3.2002 rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 667 of 1995.

2.

Heard the parties.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts are as follows :

The Respondent was working as Firka Surveyor, Chetty Kulam Firka, Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District. He was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli in Special C.C. No. 4 of 1993 for an offence u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short the Act) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default to suffer R.I. for three months. He was further convicted u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and was sentenced to one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default to suffer three months' R.I. On appeal preferred by the Respondent, the High Court by its impugned order maintained the conviction u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but invoked the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it ordered the Respondent to be released on probation.

4.

The sole question that revolves around for consideration in this appeal is, as to whether for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Probation of Offenders Act is attracted or not. Section 18 of the Probation of Offenders Act expressly bars for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act from the purview of the Act. This apart, this Court had occasioned to consider an identical question in the case of State through S.P., New Delhi Vs. Ratan Lal Arora, , where it has been held that the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is inapplicable to a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This being the view, the impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. The Respondent Shri Kaliaperumal shall be taken back into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. Compliance within three weeks.

5.

The appeal is allowed accordingly.