The person who obtained job on forged documents is not entitled to continue the same even a benefit of doubt was given in criminal proceedings or he was released on probation . This Court held that the employee cannot claim a right to continue in service on the ground that he was released on probation. It was observed: “The release under probation does not entitle an employee to claim a right to continue in service. In fact the employer is under an obligation to discontinue the services of an employee convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. The observations made by a criminal court are not binding on the employer who has the liberty of dealing with his employees suitably.” In the present case the accused obtained a job on the basis of forged documents. Even if he was to be given benefit of the Act, then also he could not retain his job because the job was obtained on the basis of forged documents.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 410 OF 2011
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
MAN SINGH …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Gupta, J.
Whether a Judge of the High Court can exercise powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short ‘CrPC’) to alter the sentence which has been passed by the
High Court itself is the issue involved in this appeal.

  1. The respondent, Man Singh was prosecuted for having
    committed offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 419
    of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). The allegation
    1
    against him was that he had used a transfer certificate of one
    Kalu Singh and forged the certificate to show that it bore his
    name and date of birth. Using this certificate, he had procured
    appointment to the post of Buffalo Attendant in the Veterinary
    Department. The trial court convicted the accused for the
    offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 419 IPC. On
    the issue of sentence, it was specifically urged before the trial
    court that benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short
    ‘the Act’) may be given to the respondent, Man Singh. The trial
    court came to the conclusion that the accused had got service on
    the basis of forged documents depriving a deserving unemployed
    person of getting such employment and, therefore, according to
    the trial court, this is not a fit case to grant probation.
    Accordingly, the trial court imposed punishment under various
    provisions of IPC for different offences but essentially the accused
    was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and was to
    pay a total fine of Rs.2000/­.
  2. The accused­respondent, Man Singh filed an appeal. The
    Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. On the issue of sentence
    he found that the accused had been dealt with leniently and
    2
    refused to interfere with the sentence. A criminal revision was
    filed in the High Court. The High Court affirmed the conviction
    but reduced the substantive sentence from one year to the period
    already undergone and enhanced the fine to Rs.10,000/­.
  3. The accused­respondent, Man Singh deposited the fine and
    then filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC praying that the
    fine had been deposited and since he is in Government job, he
    may be granted benefit of the Act. The learned Judge, without
    giving any other reasons, directed as follows:­
    “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 undergone
    would not affect service career of the petitioner.
    With the aforesaid observations petition stands disposed
    of C.C. today.”
    This order is challenged before us. At the outset, we note that
    the manner in which the learned Judge entertained the petition
    under Section 482 CrPC is highly improper and uncalled for.
    There is no power of review granted to the Courts under CrPC.
    As soon as the High Court had disposed of the original revision
    petition, upheld the conviction, reduced the sentence to the
    3
    period already undergone and enhanced the fine, it became
    functus officio and, as such, it could not have entertained the
    petition under Section 482 CrPC for altering the sentence.
  4. 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 CrPC1
    . 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 merits2
    . After disposing
    of a case on merits, the Court becomes functus officio and Section
    362 CrPC expressly bars review and specifically provides that no
    Court after it has signed its judgment shall alter or review the
    same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error3
    . Recall of
    judgment would amount to alteration or review of judgment
    which is not permissible under Section 362 CrPC. It cannot be
    validated by the High Court invoking its inherent powers4
    .
  5. We have, therefore, no doubt in our mind that the High
    Court had no power to entertain the petition under Section 482
    CrPC and alter the sentence imposed by it. We may also add that
    1 State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair, (2001) 4 SCC 752
    2 State Rep. by D.S.P., S.B.C.I.D., Chennai v. K.V. Rajendran & Ors., 2009 CriLJ 355 SC
    3 Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 169
    4 Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 736
    4
    the manner in which the probation has been granted is not at all
    legal. The trial court had given reasons for not giving benefit of
    probation. When the High Court was deciding the revision
    petition against the order of conviction, it could have, after calling
    for a report of the Probation Officer in terms of Section 4 of the
    Act, granted probation. Even in such a case it had to give
    reasons why it disagreed with the trial court and the first
    appellate court on the issue of sentence. The High Court, in fact,
    reduced the sentence to the period already undergone meaning
    thereby that the conviction was upheld and sentence was
    imposed. After sentence had been imposed and served and fine
    paid, there was no question of granting probation.
  6. Another error is that the order quoted hereinabove has been
    passed in violation of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act which
    mandates that before releasing any offender on probation of good
    conduct, the Court must obtain a report from the Probation
    Officer and can then order his release on his entering bonds with
    or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called
    upon during such period, not exceeding three years, or as the
    Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep peace and good
    5
    behaviour. The proviso to sub­section (1) of Section 4 clearly
    provides that Court cannot order release of such an offender
    unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety has a fixed
    place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the
    Court can exercise jurisdiction. Sub­section (2) lays down that
    before making any order under sub­section (1), the Court shall
    take into consideration the report of the Probation Officer. This
    Court in a number of judgments has held that before passing an
    order of probation, it is essential to obtain the report of the
    Probation Officer concerned. Reference in this behalf may be
    made to M.C.D. v. State of Delhi & Anr.5
  7. In the present case, on 03.01.2011, the counsel for the
    accused­respondent sought an adjournment on the ground that
    the accused proposes to file a special leave petition (SLP) against
    the order passed in criminal revision petition upholding his
    conviction. That SLP was filed but dismissed on 28.01.2011.
    Once that SLP has been dismissed, we cannot grant any relief to
    the accused­respondent.
    5 AIR 2005 SC 2658
    6
  8. We are also constrained to observe that the High Court in
    its order directed that the sentence which the accused has
    already undergone, would not affect his service career. We fail to
    understand under what authority the High Court could have
    passed such an order. Even in a case where the High Court
    grants benefit of probation to the accused, the Court has no
    jurisdiction to pass an order that the employee be retained in
    service. This Court in State Bank of India & Ors. v. P.
    Soupramaniane6
    clearly held that grant of benefit of probation
    under the Act does not have bearing so far as the service of such
    employee is concerned. This Court held that the employee
    cannot claim a right to continue in service on the ground that he
    was released on probation. It was observed:
    “The release under probation does not entitle an
    employee to claim a right to continue in service. In fact
    the employer is under an obligation to discontinue the
    services of an employee convicted of an offence involving
    moral turpitude. The observations made by a criminal
    court are not binding on the employer who has the liberty
    of dealing with his employees suitably.”
  9. In the present case the accused obtained a job on the basis
    of forged documents. Even if he was to be given benefit of the
    Act, then also he could not retain his job because the job was
    6 AIR 2019 SC 2187
    7
    obtained on the basis of forged documents. We are constrained
    to observe that the High Court passed the order in a mechanical
    and pedantic manner without considering what are the legal
    issues involved.
  10. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and
    the order of the High Court is set aside. Pending application(s), if
    any, stand(s) disposed of.
    …………………………….J.
    (Deepak Gupta)
    ……………………………..J.
    (Aniruddha Bose)
    New Delhi
    November 04, 2019
    8