Judgment by Supreme Court On Man Singh vs. State of India

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India recently ruled on the case involving Man Singh and the State of India. The court’s judgment focused on the implications of probation granted to individuals involved in criminal activities, as well as the employer’s prerogative to terminate services based on moral turpitude. This case sheds light on the legal intricacies surrounding employee misconduct and judicial intervention.


  • The respondent, Man Singh, was prosecuted for offences under Sections 468, 471, and 419 of the Indian Penal Code.
  • Man Singh used a transfer certificate of Kalu Singh, forged it to show his name and date of birth, and secured a job as a Buffalo Attendant in the Veterinary Department.
  • Man Singh filed an appeal and subsequently deposited the fine. He then filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC requesting leniency due to the fine payment and his government job.
  • The plea under Section 482 aimed to alter the sentence imposed by the High Court itself.
  • Accused obtained service on the basis of forged documents, depriving a deserving unemployed person of employment.
  • Trial court imposed punishment of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a total fine of Rs.2000/- for various IPC offences.
  • High Court affirmed conviction, reduced sentence to period already undergone, and increased fine to Rs.10,000/-.
  • Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal.
  • Judge granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused to ensure his service career is not affected.

Also Read: Enforcement of Foreign Award: Case of Oscar Investments Limited and RHC Holding Private Limited


  • After disposing of a case on merits, the Court becomes functus officio and cannot review or alter the judgment.
  • Recall of judgment is not permissible under Section 362 CrPC.
  • The High Court has no jurisdiction to review its order under Section 362 or Section 482 of CrPC.
  • Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used by the High Court to reopen or alter a disposed petition.
  • Even in a case where benefit of probation is granted, the Court cannot pass an order retaining the accused in service.
  • The manner in which probation was granted in this case was deemed illegal.
  • The High Court, after upholding the conviction and sentencing, could not alter the sentence through a Section 482 petition.
  • The High Court, post disposing of the original revision petition, became functus officio and could not alter the sentence through Section 482 CrPC.
  • The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 states that the Court cannot order the release of an offender without ensuring they have a fixed place of abode or regular occupation within the Court’s jurisdiction.
  • Sub-section (2) requires the Court to consider the report of the Probation Officer before making an order under sub-section (1).
  • Previous judgments have emphasized the importance of obtaining the Probation Officer’s report before granting probation.
  • Reference is made to the case of M.C.D. v. State of Delhi & Anr. regarding this issue.
  • The employee cannot claim a right to continue in service based on being released on probation.
  • The grant of benefit of probation under the Act does not impact the employee’s service.
  • The employer has the freedom to handle their employees appropriately, irrespective of court observations.
  • Employers are obligated to terminate the services of an employee convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude.
  • Release under probation does not automatically grant an employee the right to continue in service.
  • The appellant could not retain his job due to the use of forged documents.
  • The High Court’s order was deemed mechanical and pedantic.
  • Legal issues were not properly considered in the High Court’s decision.
  • The appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s order was set aside.
  • Any pending applications were disposed of.

Also Read: Case of Eligibility for Disability Pension: Air Force Officer’s Retirement


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000410-000410 / 2011

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *