LAWS(BOM)-1991-8-67

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. K.R. MURLIDHARAN NAIR

Decided On August 28, 1991
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant
V/S
K.R. Murlidharan Nair Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, preferred by the State of Maharashtra short question that arises for determination is as to whether the learned Special Judge, for Greater Bombay was justified in extending the benefit of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the respondent, who was admittedly, convicted for corruption charges.

(2.) THE learned A.P.P. has referred to the relevant provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act viz., Sections 18 and 19 thereof and there can be no dispute about the fact that the learned Special Judge was in error, he having extended the benefit to the accused. The question, therefore, arises as to whether the order requires to be interfered with and if so. what orders in the alternative and required, to be passed in this case.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. V.A. Chauhan AIR 1983 SC 395. That case was identical, to the present one in so far as the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act had been extended to an accused even though the provisions of law prohibited it. The Supreme Court took into consideration an entirely different aspect of the matter viz., the question as to whether, after a long lapse of time, such an error even if committed, could be rectified and the sentence imposed a the accused who has enjoyed the benefit of that order for several years. The Supreme Court has observed, at page 360, as follows: The matter seems to be -concluded by the decision of this Court, reported in : 1972CriLJ897 where it has been held that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act cannot be given to an accused convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life. We entirely agree with this decision and hold that the Probation of Offenders Act is not applicable, but in the instant case, as the respondent has already been given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, we do not think is in the interest of justice to interfere with it at this stage, after so many years -