SHYAM LAL VERMAversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

                          [2013] 1 S.C.R. 398


A                        SHYAM LAL VERMA
                                    v.
              CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
                (Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2013)
                          JANUARY 21, 2013
B
     [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]

          Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Offences under -
    Applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act - Appellant, a
C   retired employee of Post Office - Allegation that he
    misappropriated money - Trial court convicted appellant ul
    s.477A /PC rlw s.13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
    Corruption Act - However, instead of awarding sentence, the
    trial court released the appellant under the Probation of
D   Offenders Act - High Court allowed appeal of the CBI and
    sentenced appellant to one year under ss.477A /PC and ul
    s.13(1 }(c) read with s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
    for a further period of o_ne year - Both sentences directed to
    run concurrently - Whether the Probation of Offenders Act is
E   applicable to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act
    - Held: Since s. 7 as well as s. 13 of the Prevention of
    Corruption Act provide for a minimum sentence of six months
    and one year respectively in addition to the maximum
    sentences as well as imposition of fine, claim for grant of relief
F   under the Probation of Offenders Act is not permissible - In
    cases where a specific provision prescribes a minimum
    sentence, the provisions of the Probation Act cannot be
    invoked - No valid ground to interfere with the impugned order
    of the High Court - Appellant to surrender and to undergo
G   remaining period of sentence - Probation of Offenders Act,
    1958 - Penal Code, 1860 - s.477A.

       State Through SP, New Delhi v. Ratan la/ Arora 2004 (4)
    SCC 590: 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 631 and State Represented

H                                 398
   SHYAM LAL VERMA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                        399
               INVESTIGATION
by Inspector of Police, Pudukottai T.N. v. A Parthiban 2006           A
(11) SCC 473: 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 35 - relied on.
                       Case Law Reference:
  2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 631         relied on             Para 8
                                                                      B
  2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 35          relied on             Para 8
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 171 of 2013.

    Frqrn the Judgment & Order dated 13.03.2012 of the Hi~h           c
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 291 ·of
2004.

      Fakhruddin, Raj Kishor Choudhary Sheeba Fakhruddin
Adil, Surya Kamal Mishra Ashok. Mathur for the Appellant.
                                                                      D
   Prakriti Purnima, T.A. Khan, B.V. Bairam Das, Arvind
Kumar Sharma for the Respondent.

     The following Order of the Court was delivered

                           ORDER                                      E

     1. Leave granted.

     2. The appellant is a retired employee of Post Office. The
incident occurred in 1993-94. The allegation against him is that      F
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        G
1988.
     3. After fullfleged trial, the Trial Court convicted him under
the above mentioned Sections. However, instead of awarding
                                                                      H
      400     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 1 S.C.R.


 A 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 pe-ace and good behaviour during this period .
. B    4. 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
 C 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.

        5. Questioning the order of the High Court sentencing him,
 D as stated above, the accused preferred the present appeal by
   way of special leave.

           6. Heard learned seni.or counsel appearing on behalf of
      the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
      respondent-CBI.
 E
        7. 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.
 F This was reversed by the High Court and ultimately imposed
   substantive sentence of one year.
         8. 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 la/ Arora wherein in
 G similar circumstances, this Court held that since Section 7 as
   well as Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 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
 H
   SHYAM LAL VERMA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                        401
               INVESTIGATION

Probation of Offenders Act is not permissible. In other words,         A
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.                                                B

    9. 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.

     10. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant shall
                                                                       c
surrender and has to undergo remaining period of sentence.
His bail bonds executed pursuant to our order dated
05.07.2012 shall stand cancelled.

B.B.B.                                        Appeal dismissed.~- D