Holding

Section 360 of the CrPC is inapplicable where the Probation of Offenders Act applies or where the offence carries a life sentence, rendering the High Court's probation order illegal.

Summary

The trial court convicted five accused of offences under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325 and 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment and fines. On appeal, the High Court reduced some sentences, enhanced the fine and ordered the accused to be released on probation under Section 360 of the CrPC. The State of Haryana and the informant challenged that order, arguing that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is applicable in Haryana and that Section 360 cannot be used for offences carrying a life sentence. The Supreme Court examined the relationship between Section 360 of the CrPC, the Probation Act and the General Clauses Act, holding that where the Probation Act is in force, Section 360 is repugnant and cannot be applied, and that Section 360 also does not apply to offences punishable with life imprisonment. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's probation order and remitted the matter to the High Court to decide the case without applying Section 360. The appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable when the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is in force in the same jurisdiction.
Whether Section 360 can be invoked for offences that carry a life sentence under Section 326 IPC.
Whether the High Court erred in directing release of the accused on probation and enhancing the fine.
Interpretation of Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act in case of repugnancy between statutes.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 360, s. 361
General Clauses Act, 1897s. 8(1)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 323, s. 324, s. 325, s. 326
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958s. 12, s. 3, s. 4

Subjects

Joint liabilityProbationSection 360 CrPCGeneral Clauses ActLife imprisonmentSentencing enhancementCriminal appealIPC offencesStatutory repugnancy

Judgment

1.
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 846

A RAMESH DASS ' ,A

II.
RAGHU NATH AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 313 OF 2008)
FEBRUARY 14, 2008
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)
~ ......
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 148, 323, 324, 325 rlw S. 149/Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Ss. 360 & 361:
c Grievous hurt - Joint liability - Trial Court convicting
accused persons for offences punishable ulss. 148, 323, 324,
326r/w S.149 IPC-Sentence reduced by High Court-Convict
filing Revision Petition -Appeal filed by State for enhancement
of sentence - Dismissed by High Court directing release of
D accused persons on probation u/s. 360 Cr.PC. - Correctness
of - Held: Incorrect - Legislature mandates that Courts could
apply any of the beneficial provisions, either S. 360 of the Code
or under Probation Act - Two statutes with significant
differences could not be intended to co-exist at the same time
E - In terms of provisions u/s. 8(1) of the General Clauses Act,
provisions of Probation Act applies, and provisions of S. 360
of the Code has no application to the facts of the present case l>
- Matter remitted to High Court to decide the same in
accordance with law - General Clauses Act - S. 8(1) -
"'
F Probation of offenders Act, 1958 - Ss. 3, 4 & 12.
'""'(
Respondent-accused persons were convicted by
trial Court for committing offences punishable ulss. 148,
323, 324 and 326 r/w s.149 IPC. It also sentenced them to
imprisonment, imposed fine and directed them to pay
G compensation to the victims from the amount realised as
fine. On an appeal filed by the accused persons, Appellate
-J ..
Court reduced the sentence in respect of offence
punishable uls.323 rlw S.149 IPC to three years. Accused
persons filed Revision Petition for quashing the judgment
H 846
RAMESH DASS v. RAGHU NATH AND ORS. 847

j__ and order of conviction of the trial Court and State filed A
appeal for enhancement of the sentence. The High Court
dismissed both the petitions but modified the judgment
of the Courts below directing release of the accused
persons on probation u/s.360 Cr.P.C. and enhanced the
fine. Hence the present appeals filed by the informant. B
Informant contended that the direction given by the
.:A-.. High Court cannot be maintained; that since the
Probation of Offenders Act is applicable to the State of
Haryana, Section 360 is not applicable; and that in any
event, life imprisonment is provided for an offence c
punishable under Section 326 IPC. So, Section 360 of the
Code also has no application.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Enforcement of Probation Act in some .D
particular area excludes the applicability of the provisions
...... of Sections 360, 361 of the Code in that area. (Para - 7)
[852-B]
Chhanni v. State of U.P (2006 (5) SCC 396) and Daljit
Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (2006 (6) SCC 159 - E
relied on.
Jagdev Singh vs. State of Punjab (1973) SCC (Crl.) 977)
- referred to.
1.2 Where the provisions of the Probation Act are F
)
applicable the employment of Section 360 of the Code is
not to be made. In cases of such application, it would be
an illegality resulting in highly undesirable consequences,
which the legislature, who gave birth to the Probation Act
and the Code, wanted to obviate. Yet the legislature in its G
wisdom has obliged the Court under Section 361 of the
'"',,.
' Code to apply one of.the other beneficial provis·ions; be it
Section 360 of the Code or the provisions of the Probation
Act. It is only by providing special reasons that their
applicability can be withheld by the Court. (Para - 5) H
1
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A [851-A, B & C] ~

1.3 Section 360 of the Code does not provide for any
role for Probation Officers in assisting the Courts in
relation to supervision and other matters while Probation
Act does make such a provision. While Section 12 of the
B Probation Act states that the person found guilty of an
offence and dealt with under Section 3 or 4 of the
Probation Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, ,.Jc
attached to conviction of an offence under any law, the
Code does not contain parallel provision. Two statutes
c with such significant differences could not be intended
to co-exist at the same time in the same area. Such co·
existence would lead to anomalous results. The intention
to retain the provisions of Section 360 of the Code and
the provisions of the Probation Act as applicable at the
D same time in a given area cannot be gathered from the
provisions of Section 360 or any other provision of the ..,.,_
Code. Therefore, by virtue of Section 8(1) of the General
Clauses Act, where the provisions of the Act have been
brought into force, the provisions of Section 360 of the
E Code are wholly inapplicable. (Para - 6) [851 ·F, G & H;
852-A & B]
2. Section 360 of the Code has no application to the
facts of the present case. The High Court seems to have
lost sight of the correct position in law. The matter is
F remitted to the High Court to consider about the non·
applicability of Section 360 of the Code both on the ground -f
that the Probation Act has application and Section 326
carrie.s life imprisonment. (Paras - 11 & 12) [852-E & F]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
G No. 313 of 2008.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.5.2006 of the High -J' -,'
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. R. No. 782/
1991.
H WITH
RAMESH DASS v. RAGHU NATH AND ORS. 849
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 2008. A
Dr. Kanwal Sapra, Gyaneshwar Bhat, B.B. Sinha, A.L.
Trehan and T.V. George for the Appellant.
Lily Thomas, A.K. Panigrahi and A Rama Devi for the
Respondents. B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
;J....
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals have their matrix on an order passed
by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High C
Court. By the impugned judgment a Criminal Revision was filed
by the informant and Criminal Appeal filed by the State of
Haryana seeking enhancement of the sentence were disposed
of.
D
Respondents faced trial for alleged commission of
-.. offences punishable under Sections 148 and 326 read with
Section 149, Section 325 read with Section 149, Section 324
read with Section 149 and Section 323 read with Section 149
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kamal convicted and sentenced five of the E
accused persons in th.~;following manner:
Sections Imprisonment Fine
I ;;
326/149 IPC Five years RI Rs.5,000/- each.
., In default of payment F
of fine R. I. for one year.
325/149 IPC Two years R.I. Rs.500/- each. In
default of payment

.
of fine R.I. for six months
G
1481.P.C. Six months R. I.
t
323/149 IPC Three months R. I.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was
directed that in case the fine amount imposed was realized, an H
-{
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A amount of Rs.20,000/- was to be paid as compensation to the
informant Pindi Dass who was injured and also a sum of
Rs.5,000/-was payable to Ramesh Dass another injured victim.
The accused persons filed an appeal and learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kamal reduced the sentence under
B Section 326 read with section 149 IPC to three years but upheld
all other sentences and the fine imposed by the trial Court. The
accused persons filed criminal revision before the High Court )'A
for quashing the judgment and order of conviction of the trial
Court. As noted above, the State of Haryana filed an appeal for
c enhancement of the sentence and informant also filed a revision
application. The High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal of
the State and Criminal Revision of the injured for enhancement
of sentence but modified the judgment of courts below and
directed release of the accused persons on probation under
D Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short
.
the 'Code') and enhanced the amount of fine to Rs.15,000/-
each and directed 50% shall be payable to the injured Pindi
Dass. It is to be noted that in the meantime Pindi Dass has
died.
E 3. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the
direction given by the High Court cannot be maintained. Firstly,
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short the 'Probation
Act') is applicable to the State of Haryana and therefore, Section
360 is not applicable. In any event, life imprisonment is provided
F for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. So, Section
1
360 of the Code also has no application.
4. Learned counsel for the accused respondents
supported the judgment of the High Court. It further submitted
that considering the fact that incident took place long back, this
G
Court should not interfere by exercising jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). The -J ·~
State of Haryana-appellant in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No.5321 of 2006 supported the stand of the informant who
is appellant in Criminal appeal relatable to SLP (Crl.)No.4646/
H
RAMESH DASS v. RAGHU NATH AND ORS. 851
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

2006. A
5. Where the provisions of the Probation Act are applicable
the employment of Section 360 of the Code is not to be made.
In cases of such application, it would be an illegality resulting in
highly undesirable consequences, which the legislature, who
gave birth to the Probation Act and the Code wanted to obviate. B
Yet the legislature in its wisdom has obliged the Court under
..-4 ~
Section 361 of the Code to apply one of the other beneficial
provisions; be it Section 360 of the Code or the provisions of
the Probation Act. It is only by providing special reasons that
their applicability can be withheld by the Court. The comparative c
elevation of the provisions of the Probation Act are further
noticed in sub-section (10) of Section 360 of the Code which
makes it clear that nothing in the said Section shall affect the
provisions of the Probation Act. Those provisions have a
paramountcy of their own in the respective areas where they D
are applicable.
6. Section 360 of the Code relates only to persons not
under 21 years of age convicted for an offence punishable with
fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less,
to any person under 21 years of age or any woman convicted of E
an offence not punishable with sentence of death or
imprisonment for life. The scope of Section 4 of the Probation
Act is much wider. It applies to any person found guilty of having
committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment
)' for life. Section 360 of the Code does not provide for any role F
for Probation Officers in assisting the Courts in relation to
supervision and other matters while Probation Act does make
such a provision. While Section 12 of the Probation Act states
that the person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under
Section 3 or 4 of the Probation Act shall not suffer G
..._ disqualification, if any, attached to conviction of an offence under
\
any law, the Code does not contain parallel provision. Two
statutes with such significant differences could not be intended
to co-exist at the same time in the same area. Such co-existence
would lead to anomalous results. The intention to retain the H
1:
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

J...
A provisions of Section 360 of the Code and the provisions of the
Probation Act as applicable at the same time in a given area
cannot be gathered from the provisions of Section 360 or any
other provision of the Code. Therefore, by virtue of Section 8(1)
of the General Clauses Act, where the provisions of the Act have
B been brought into force, the provisions of Section 360 of the
Code are wholly inapplicable.
;. )\
7. Enforcement of Probation Act in some particular area
excludes the applicability of the provisions of Sections 360, 361
of the Code in that area.
c
8. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Chhanni v.
State of UP (2006 (5) SCC 396) and Daljit Singh and Ors. v.
State of Punjab (2006 (6) SCC 159).
9. Further, Section 360(1) of the Code itself provides that
D if for any offence life sentence is provided for, section 360 of
the Code would have no application. ).-

10. Undisputedly, in Jagdev Singh v. State of Punjab
(1973 SCC (Crl.) 977) it was held that Section 360 has no
application since under Section 326 IPC the said offence carries
E life imprisonment. In any event, that question is academic.
11 . In view of what has been stated above, Section 360 of
the Code has no application to the facts of the present case.
The High Court seems to have lost sight of the correct position
F in law. -{
'
12. Above being the position, the matter is remitted to the
High Court to consider about the non-applicability of Section
360 of the Code both on the ground that the Probation Act has
application and Section 326 carries life imprisonment.
G
13. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.
--J ....
S.K.S. Appeals allowed.