clause. Thus, the benefits of the Act did not apply in case of mandatory minimum sentences prescribed by special legislation enacted after the Act. [State v. Ratan Lal Arora, (2004) 4 SCC 590 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1353. Ed. : Ratan Lal Arora decision is by a two-Judge Bench which applies the principle laid down by the three-Judge Bench in Bahubali, (1979) 2 SCC 279:“that in cases where a specific enactment enacted after the Probation Act prescribes a minimum sentence of imprisonment, the provisions of the Probation Act cannot be invoked if the special Act contains any provision to enforce the same without reference to any other Act containing a provision, in derogation of the special enactment, there is no scope for extending the benefit of the Probation Act to the accused.”Ratan Lal Arora case applied the above principle to hold benefit of the 1958 Act is not available in respect of conviction under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 providing for a minimum sentence of imprisonment, inter alia, the same having been enacted after the 1958 Act. See in particular para 12 of Ratan Lal Arora case.] It is in this context, it was observed in State of M.P. v. Vikram Das [(2019) 4 SCC 125 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 20. Ed. : Vikram Das decision is by a twoJudge Bench and applies the principle laid down by the three-Judge Bench in Bahubali and followed in Ratan Lal Arora, in para 6, that where an enactment enacted after the Probation Act prescribes minimum sentence of imprisonment and the special Act contains any provision to enforce the same without reference to any other Act containing a provision in derogation of the special enactment, the provisions of the Probation Act cannot be invoked.] 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 IPC, the offence in the present case. In fact, the observation made in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab [Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 SCC OnLine P&H 172 : ILR (1981) 1 P&H 1] are in the same context."
