2006 (10) TMI 494 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Applicability of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Interpretation of Section 71 IPC and Section 220 Cr.P.C.
4. Applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Summary:

1. Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The respondent was initially convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced accordingly. The Madras High Court, however, set aside the conviction under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) while confirming the conviction under Section 7, reasoning that a single act should not lead to convictions under both sections. The Supreme Court found this approach erroneous, stating that "Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act operate separately" and that the act of demanding and receiving illegal gratification constitutes offences under both sections.

2. Applicability of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The High Court applied Section 360 Cr.P.C. to release the respondent on probation. The Supreme Court held that "provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. are not applicable to offences under the Act," emphasizing that where a statute prescribes a minimum sentence, the court cannot reduce it further. The Court referenced its decision in State of J & K v. Vinay Nand to support this view.

3. Interpretation of Section 71 IPC and Section 220 Cr.P.C.:
The Supreme Court clarified that "Section 71 IPC provides the complete answer" to whether a single act can lead to multiple convictions. It stated that if an act constitutes offences under multiple sections, the offender should not be punished with a more severe punishment than what could be awarded for any one of the offences. The Court further explained that "Section 220 of the Cr.P.C." allows for trial of multiple offences in a single transaction, reinforcing that the act in question could be construed as offences under both Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.

4. Applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's application of the Probation Act, noting that "Section 18 of the Probation Act" makes its provisions inapplicable to offences under Section 13(2) of the Act. The Court emphasized that "the principles enunciated under the Probation Act cannot be extended" to cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act due to the mandate in Section 18. The Court also highlighted that Section 360 of the Code cannot be invoked in states where the Probation Act is in force, as was the case in Tamil Nadu.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstating the trial court's sentences of six months under Section 7 and one year under Section 13(2) of the Act, to run concurrently. The fines imposed by the trial court were also confirmed.