JUDGMENT By the judgment passed on 4.10.93, I had allowed this appeal and reversed the verdict of acquittal into conviction. I had sentenced the respondent-accused to suffer three months' jail sentence. In imposing that sentence, less than the minimum prescribed under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 duly took into consideration the circumstances such as the incident is of April, 1984 and the bribe money was in the sum of Rs. 500/- as also the possibility of the accused losing his job in the M.P. Electricity Board. After passing of the verdict of conviction the counsel for the accused moved an application under section 235 (2) of the Cr. Procedure Code with a request that the accused should have been heard on the question of quantum of sentence. I entertained that application and listed the case for hearing parties. On the question of quantum of sentence, I do not find any express provision in the Code which requires hearing of the accused separately after conviction on the question of quantum of sentence in an appeal against acquittal. The learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Survamoorthi v. Govindaswamv ( AIR 1989 SC 1410 ) in support of his submission that I should have heard the parties after conviction even in appeal separately on the question of sentence. I have, therefore, refixed the case on 29.10.93 and heard the parties on the question of sentence. The learned counsel for the accused has filed a written application mentioning therein the reason for leniency on the question of sentence. He has also requested that the accused be released on probation by giving benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and section 360 of Cr. Procedure Code. Having heard learned counsel for parties at sufficient length, I do not find that the sentence imposed by me of 3 months' R.I. is in any manner, liable to be reduced. The reasons such as likelihood of losing job and large family of the accused to be maintained by him are not considered to be special reasons by the Supreme Court in Meet Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1980 SC 1141 ) to justify any leniency on the question of sentence. The reasons such as likelihood of losing job and large family of the accused to be maintained by him are not considered to be special reasons by the Supreme Court in Meet Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1980 SC 1141 ) to justify any leniency on the question of sentence. So far as the other reasons relied on by the counsel for the accused for adopting leniency on the question of sentences, I have already in my judgment taken them into account such as the fact that the incident is of April, 1984, the amount of bribe is in the sum of Rs. 500/- and the possibility of the accused losing his job from the M.P. Electricity Board. So far as the question of extending the benefit of section 368 CrPC and section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, such benefit cannot be extended to a convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in view of section 18 and 19 of the Probation of Offenders Act which make the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 inapplicable to conviction and sentence under sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The sections are as under : -- "18. Saving of operation of certain enactment :-- Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of section 31 of the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897 (8 of 1897) of sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947) or of any law in force in any State relating in Juvenile offenders or borstal schools. 19. Section 562 of the Code not to apply in certain areas : -- Subject to the prevention of section 18, Section 560 of the Code shall cease to apply to the States or parts thereof in which this Act is brought into force. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any justification for imposing lesser sentence than the one imposed by me initially in my judgment. The application filed by the accused on the question of sentence, therefore, stand disposed of.