Essay on No Probation for Convicted Corrupt Persons in India !
The Supreme Court in State Supdtt. Police, New Delhi v. Ratan Lal Arora, categorically refused to extend the benefit of release on probation to the offender convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused in this case was serving in DESU and had been convicted for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 1,500/- from a consumer and the trial Court had sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offences under Section 13(2) of the Act.
The benefit of probation had been extended to him by the High Court under Section 360 of Cr. P.C. because of his being in adverse family circumstances and the sum accepted by him was paltry. The other reasons given by the High Court were that the accused had retired during trial itself and turned to be of 64 years of age and had already remained in jail for 22 days.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Supreme Court held that all these reasons are not proper for going below the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence but confined the awarded term of imprisonment to the period of six months under Section 7 and one year under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, both the sentences were to run concurrently.
Again, in the case of N. Bhargavan Pillai (dead) by L.R’s and Another v. State of Kerala, the Apex Court ruled that the benefit of release on probation of good conduct cannot be extended to an accused who is charged of misappropriation of property and corruption under Sections 409 IPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
In the instant case, the accused was working as Junior Manager on deputation in State Civil Supplies Corporation and the stock in the godown in his charge was found short by the vigilance department after due enquiry in the case. Meanwhile the accused retired from service.
He undertook to remit the value of shortage and deposited Rs. 50,000/- as part-payment thereof. Since charges were proved against the accused, he was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of rupees one lakh with a default stipulation of six months imprisonment.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Since the accused died during pendency of the appeal, his legal representatives were impleaded for the payment of fine. The Court held that in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the Probation of Offenders Act, application of the Act is clearly ruled out in cases of corruption covered under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appeal was therefore, dismissed.
The Supreme Court in State through Supdt. Police, New Delhi v. Ratan Lai Arora, reiterated that the benefit of release on probation under Section 360 Cr. P.C. or Probation of Offender’s Act, 1958 cannot be extended to an accused who is convicted for an offence under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Court clarified that so far application of Section 360, Cr. P.C. is concerned, it cannot be invoked where the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has been enforced and since the Act was already been in force in Delhi, this section had no application. The order of the High Court of Delhi in extending the benefit of probation under Section 360, Cr. P.C. was therefore illegal.
The Apex Court further noted that Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) do not empower the Court to show any leniency in imposition of sentence below the minimum stipulated. Therefore, order of the High Court granting benefit of probation to the accused was liable to be set aside.