Supreme Court Rules Against High Court’s Alteration of Sentence in Forgery Case

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Man Singh, addressing the issue of whether a High Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to alter a sentence that it had previously passed. This case revolves around the respondent, Man Singh, who was convicted of forgery and cheating to secure a government job.

Background of the Case

Man Singh was prosecuted for using a forged transfer certificate to secure a job as a Buffalo Attendant in the Veterinary Department of Madhya Pradesh. The allegations against him included offenses under Sections 468 (forgery for cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 419 (cheating by personation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The trial court found Man Singh guilty and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2000. The accused appealed to the Sessions Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence, stating that he had been dealt with leniently. A criminal revision petition was then filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

High Court’s Decision

The High Court upheld Man Singh’s conviction but reduced the substantive sentence from one year to the period already undergone. Additionally, it increased the fine amount to Rs. 10,000. Following this decision, Man Singh deposited the fine and then filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC, requesting that he be granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, so that his conviction would not affect his government job.

The High Court allowed this petition, stating:

“After having heard learned counsel for the parties, prayer is allowed and the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is extended to the petitioner for the purpose that the sentence, which has already been undergone, would not affect the service career of the petitioner.”

The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged this order before the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Petitioner (State of Madhya Pradesh)

The State argued that:

• Once the High Court had disposed of the criminal revision petition, it had become functus officio (having no further authority over the case) and could not have entertained a petition under Section 482 CrPC to alter the sentence.
• The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to reopen or alter an order that has already been passed on merits.
• Section 362 CrPC explicitly bars any court from reviewing or altering a judgment after it has been signed, except for correcting clerical or arithmetic errors.
• The trial court had explicitly denied probation, and the High Court had no jurisdiction to grant it after the final judgment was delivered.

Arguments by the Respondent (Man Singh)

Man Singh contended that:

• He had already deposited the fine imposed by the High Court, and he was merely seeking relief under the Probation of Offenders Act to save his government job.
• The High Court had the discretion to grant probation even after conviction to ensure that the sentence did not adversely impact his employment.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court, in a bench comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, ruled in favor of the State and set aside the High Court’s order. The Court made several key observations:

1. High Court Became Functus Officio After Final Judgment

The Supreme Court held that once the High Court had passed a final order in the criminal revision petition, it had no power to entertain a subsequent petition under Section 482 CrPC to modify the sentence. The Court cited established precedents, including:

“It is well-settled law that the High Court has no jurisdiction to review its order either under Section 362 or under Section 482 of CrPC.”

2. Section 362 CrPC Expressly Prohibits Review

The judgment reiterated that Section 362 of CrPC strictly prohibits courts from altering or reviewing a judgment once it has been signed, except to correct clerical errors. It stated:

“After disposing of a case on merits, the Court becomes functus officio, and recall of judgment would amount to alteration or review, which is not permissible under Section 362 CrPC.”

3. Probation Was Illegally Granted

The Supreme Court also pointed out that the manner in which the High Court granted probation was flawed:

• The trial court had explicitly denied probation, citing that the accused had fraudulently obtained a government job, depriving a more deserving candidate.
• Even if probation were to be considered, a report from the Probation Officer was required under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which was not obtained in this case.
• Probation cannot be granted after the sentence has already been served and the fine has been paid.

4. High Court Had No Authority to Save the Respondent’s Job

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the High Court’s direction that the conviction “would not affect the service career of the petitioner.” It held:

“We fail to understand under what authority the High Court could have passed such an order. Even in a case where probation is granted, the Court has no jurisdiction to order that the employee be retained in service.”

5. Government Job Obtained Through Fraud Cannot Be Protected

The Supreme Court emphasized that Man Singh had obtained his job through fraudulent means by using forged documents. Therefore, even if he were granted probation, he could not have continued in service. The Court cited previous rulings, stating:

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

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Man Singh reaffirms that:

• High Courts cannot alter their final judgments using Section 482 CrPC.
• Probation must be granted in accordance with legal procedures and cannot be awarded after the sentence has been served.
• Court orders cannot override service rules and protect employees who secured jobs through fraudulent means.

This ruling upholds the integrity of judicial processes and prevents misuse of judicial discretion to circumvent legal provisions.

Petitioner Name: State of Madhya Pradesh.
Respondent Name: Man Singh.
Judgment By: Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 04-11-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: State of Madhya Prad vs Man Singh Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-11-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category