Supreme Court clarifies High Court’s powers under Section 482 CrPC: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Man Singh (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: November 04, 2019
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Deepak Gupta, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.
Can a High Court, after finalizing a criminal case, use its inherent powers to change the sentence it had already imposed? This question was at the heart of a recent case before the Supreme Court of India. The Court examined whether a High Court could modify a sentence under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) after the original judgment had been delivered. The Supreme Court bench comprised of Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose.

Case Background

The case revolves around Man Singh, who was accused of using a forged transfer certificate to secure a job as a Buffalo Attendant in the Veterinary Department. He was charged under Sections 468, 471, and 419 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2000. The court rejected his plea for probation, citing the severity of his actions in depriving a deserving person of employment.

Man Singh appealed to the Sessions Judge, who upheld the conviction and noted that the sentence was lenient. Man Singh then filed a criminal revision in the High Court, which affirmed the conviction but reduced the imprisonment to the period already served and increased the fine to Rs. 10,000.

Subsequently, Man Singh filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC, requesting the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, stating he had paid the fine and was employed in a government job. The High Court granted this request, stating that the sentence already served would not affect his service career. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Man Singh under Sections 468, 471, and 419 of the IPC, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The trial court specifically rejected the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, noting that Man Singh had obtained employment through forged documents. The Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and found the sentence to be lenient. The High Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the imprisonment to the period already served and increased the fine to Rs. 10,000. Subsequently, the High Court entertained a petition under Section 482 CrPC and granted probation to the respondent, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with the inherent powers of the High Court. According to the judgment, these powers cannot be used to alter or review a judgment once it has been finalized. The judgment also refers to Section 362 of CrPC, which expressly bars any court from altering or reviewing its judgment after it has been signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.

The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is also relevant, particularly Section 4, which mandates that a court must obtain a report from the Probation Officer before releasing an offender on probation.

The relevant legal provisions are:

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): “Saving of inherent power of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
• Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): “Court not to alter judgment. Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.”
• Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: This section outlines the procedure for releasing offenders on probation, including the requirement of a report from the Probation Officer.

Arguments

The State of Madhya Pradesh argued that the High Court had no power to entertain the petition under Section 482 CrPC and alter the sentence it had previously imposed. The State contended that once the High Court had disposed of the original revision petition, it became functus officio and could not review or alter its decision, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The State also argued that the High Court’s grant of probation was illegal because it did not follow the procedure laid down in Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which requires a report from the Probation Officer.

The respondent, Man Singh, argued that the High Court was justified in granting probation because he had deposited the fine and was employed in a government job. He contended that the High Court’s order was meant to ensure that his service career was not affected by the conviction.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether a Judge of the High Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to alter the sentence which has been passed by the High Court itself?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had no power to entertain the petition under Section 482 CrPC and alter the sentence it had imposed. The Court emphasized that once the High Court had disposed of the original revision petition, it became functus officio and could not review or alter its decision, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors, as per Section 362 CrPC.

The Court also found that the High Court’s grant of probation was illegal because it did not follow the procedure laid down in Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which requires a report from the Probation Officer. The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court’s direction that the sentence would not affect Man Singh’s service career was beyond its jurisdiction.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair, (2001) 4 SCC 752* was followed to reiterate that the High Court has no jurisdiction to review its order either under Section 362 or under Section 482 of CrPC.
• State Rep. by D.S.P., S.B.C.I.D., Chennai v. K.V. Rajendran & Ors., 2009 CriLJ 355 SC* was followed to hold that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used by the High Court to reopen or alter an order disposing of a petition decided on merits.
• Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 169* was followed to emphasize that Section 362 CrPC bars review of judgments.
• Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 736* was followed to state that recall of judgment would amount to alteration or review of judgment which is not permissible under Section 362 CrPC.
• M.C.D. v. State of Delhi & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 2658* was followed to reiterate that before passing an order of probation, it is essential to obtain the report of the Probation Officer.
• State Bank of India & Ors. v. P. Soupramaniane, AIR 2019 SC 2187* was followed to clarify that grant of probation does not guarantee continuation in service.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that High Courts do not overstep their jurisdiction. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements of the law, particularly Section 362 of CrPC and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Court also highlighted that the High Court’s order was passed in a mechanical and pedantic manner without considering the legal issues involved.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal principles and procedural requirements, with a stronger emphasis on the legal aspects rather than the factual aspects of the case.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the principle that once a court has finalized a judgment, it cannot alter it, except in cases of clerical or arithmetical errors. This principle is enshrined in Section 362 of the CrPC. The Court also emphasized that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC cannot be used to circumvent this principle. The Court further noted that the High Court’s order granting probation was illegal as it did not follow the procedure laid down in Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which requires a report from the Probation Officer. The Court also highlighted that the High Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order that the employee be retained in service.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on a strict interpretation of the law, with a focus on maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. The Court rejected any alternative interpretations that would have allowed the High Court to alter its judgment or grant probation without following the prescribed procedure. The Court’s decision is clear and unequivocal, leaving no room for doubt about the limits of the High Court’s powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the reasoning and the outcome. There were no dissenting opinions.

“There is no power of review granted to the Courts under CrPC.”

“After disposing of a case on merits, the Court becomes functus officio and Section 362 CrPC expressly bars review”

“The release under probation does not entitle an employee to claim a right to continue in service.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts cannot use Section 482 CrPC to alter sentences they have already passed.
• Once a High Court disposes of a case on merits, it becomes functus officio.
• Section 362 CrPC bars the review of judgments except for clerical or arithmetical errors.
• Probation cannot be granted without following the procedure under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, including obtaining a report from the Probation Officer.
• Granting probation does not guarantee continuation in service.

This judgment reinforces the principle that High Courts must adhere to the procedural requirements of the law and cannot use their inherent powers to circumvent these requirements. This decision will have a significant impact on how High Courts handle criminal cases and will ensure that the judicial process is followed strictly.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not applicable as no specific amendment was discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to alter a sentence it has already passed. This reaffirms the principle that once a court has delivered a judgment, it cannot review or alter it, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. This decision clarifies the limits of the High Court’s powers under Section 482 CrPC and ensures the finality of judicial decisions. This decision does not change the previous position of law but reinforces it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Man Singh clarifies that High Courts cannot use their inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to alter sentences they have already passed. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements of the law and ensuring the finality of judicial decisions. The judgment reinforces that High Courts must follow due process and cannot circumvent legal provisions using inherent powers. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order.