Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(5) The court making a supervision order under subsection (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned."

11. Even if there is minimum sentence provided in Section 7 of the EC Act, in our opinion, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of probation, the EC Act, being of the year 1955 and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 being later. Even if minimum sentence is provided in the EC Act, 1955 the same will not be a hurdle for invoking the applicability of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Reference can be made to a judgment of this Court in Lakhvir Singh v. The State of Punjab; (2021) 2 SCC 763.

"16. Even though, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act") prescribes a minimum sentence of imprisonment for not less than 1 year, an exception was carved out keeping in mind the application of the Act. In Ishar Das [Ishar Das v. State of Punjab, (1973) 2 SCC 65 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 708. Ed.: Ishar Das decision is by a two-Judge Bench, the statutory provision in question was Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Section 16(1) provides for a minimum mandatory sentence and it was held in Ishar Das case that this would be subject to the non obstante clause in Section 4 of the 1958 Act.] , this Court noted that if the object of the legislature was that the Act does not apply to all cases where a minimum sentence of imprisonment is prescribed, there was no reason to specifically provide an exception for Section 5(2) of the PC Act. The fact that Section 18 of the Act does not include any other such offences where a mandatory minimum sentence has been prescribed suggests that the Act may be invoked in such other offences. A more nuanced interpretation on this aspect was given in CCE v. Bahubali [CCE v. Bahubali, (1979) 2 SCC 279 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 447. Ed.: Bahubali decision is by a three-Judge Bench.] . It was opined that the Act may not apply in cases where a specific law enacted after 1958 prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence, and the law contains a non obstante clause. Thus, the benefits of the Act did not apply in case of mandatory minimum sentences prescribed by special legislation enacted after the Act. [State v. Ratan Lal Arora, (2004) 4 SCC 590 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1353. Ed.: Ratan Lal Arora decision is by a two-Judge Bench which applies the principle laid down by the three-Judge Bench in Bahubali, (1979) 2 SCC 279:"that in cases where a specific enactment enacted after the Probation Act prescribes a minimum sentence of imprisonment, the provisions of the Probation Act cannot be invoked if the special Act contains any provision to enforce the same without reference to any other Act containing a provision, in derogation of the special enactment, there is no scope for extending the benefit of the Probation Act to the accused."Ratan Lal Arora case applied the above principle to hold benefit of the 1958 Act is not available in respect of conviction under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 providing for a minimum sentence of imprisonment, inter alia, the same having been enacted after the 1958 Act. See in particular para 12 of Ratan Lal Arora case.] It is in this context, it was observed in State of M.P. v. Vikram Das [(2019) 4 SCC 125 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 20. Ed.: Vikram Das decision is by a two-Judge Bench and applies the principle laid down by the three-Judge Bench in Bahubali and followed in Ratan Lal Arora, in para 6, that where an enactment enacted after the Probation Act prescribes minimum sentence of imprisonment and the special Act contains any provision to enforce the same without reference to any other Act containing a provision in derogation of the special enactment, the provisions of the Probation Act cannot be invoked.] that the court cannot award a sentence less than the mandatory sentence prescribed by the statute. We are of the view that the corollary to the aforesaid legal decisions ends with a conclusion that the benefit of probation under the said Act is not excluded by the provisions of the mandatory minimum sentence under Section 397 IPC, the offence in the present case. In fact, the observation made in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab [Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 SCC OnLine P&H 172 : ILR (1981) 1 P&H 1] are in the same context."