Case Title: LAKHVIR SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB
According to the Supreme Court, the provisions of the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed for offences under the Indian Penal Code do not restrict the benefits of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
The accused in this case were found guilty under Section 397 of the IPC and given a 7-year sentence for each count of rigorous imprisonment. It was argued that the conflict had been settled amicably by the time the case reached the Apex Court. The state argued that the minimum sentence stipulated by the law under Section 397 is 7 years and that it cannot be reduced below that period in response to the accused's prayer for relief under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
The Court noted that Section 4 of the Act might be helpful to the accused because the crime for which they have been found guilty does not carry a death sentence or a life sentence in prison. The court further stated that Section 6 would not protect them because they were under 21 at the time of the offence but not at the time of their conviction.
Regarding the argument that the courts cannot impose a sentence that is less than the minimum one required by law based on the case State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram Das, the bench made the following observation:
‘"he fact that Section 18 of the Act does not include any other such offences where a mandatory minimum sentence has been prescribed suggests that the Act may be invoked in such other offences. A more nuanced interpretation of this aspect was given in CCE vs. Bahubali. It was opined that the Act may not apply in cases where a specific law enacted after 1958 prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence, and the law contains a non-obstante clause. Thus, the benefits of the Act did not apply in case of mandatory minimum sentences prescribed by special legislation enacted after the Act.It is in this context, it was observed in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Vikram Das (Supra) that the court cannot award a sentence less than the mandatory sentence prescribed by the statute. We are of the view that the corollary to the aforesaid legal decisions ends with a conclusion that the benefit of probation under the said Act is not excluded by the provisions of the mandatory minimum sentence under Section 397 of IPC, the offence in the present case."
The bench ruled that the accused should be released on probation for good behaviour as per Section 4 of the aforementioned Act, "upon completion of half the sentence and upon entering into a bond with two sureties each to ensure that they maintain peace and good behaviour for the remainder of their sentence, failing which they may be called upon to serve that part of their sentence."