Summary
After affirming convictions for obtaining public employment through forged documents and modifying the sentence in revision, the High Court used Section 482 CrPC to grant probation and protect the employee’s service career. The Court set aside that later order as an impermissible review and an unlawful grant of probation and service protection.
Issues
- Whether inherent criminal jurisdiction permitted alteration of a sentence already imposed in a disposed revision.
- Whether probation could be granted after service of sentence and without the statutory process, or protect continued employment.
Held
- Once the revision was disposed of on merits and the sentence imposed, the High Court was functus officio. Section 482 cannot circumvent Section 362’s bar on altering or reviewing a signed judgment, apart from correction of clerical or arithmetical error. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6)
- Probation could have been considered when deciding the revision with the required probation-officer report and reasons for differing from the lower courts. It could not be granted after sentence was served and fine paid; the later order also omitted the required report and statutory safeguards. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- Probation does not confer a right to remain in service or bind the employer to retain a convicted employee. Here the job itself had been obtained through forged documents, and the criminal court could not protect that employment by its order. (¶¶ 9, 10)
Result
State appeal allowed; the High Court’s later Section 482 order granting probation and service protection was set aside. Pending applications disposed of.