JUDGMENT H.K. SEMA, J.- This appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras dated 28-3-2002 rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 667 of 1995. 2. Heard the parties. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: The respondent was working as Firka Surveyor, Chetty Kulam Firka, Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District. He was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli in Special CC No.4 of 1993 for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short the Act) and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and also imposed a fine of Rs 2000, in default to suffer RI for three months. He was further convicted under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act and was sentenced to one years RI and to pay a fine of Rs 2000, in default to suffer three months RI. On appeal preferred by the respondent, the High Court by its impugned order maintained the conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but invoked the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it ordered the respondent to be released on probation. 4. The sole question that revolves around for consideration in this appeal is, as to whether for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Probation of Offenders Act is attracted or not. Section 18 of the Probation of Offenders Act expressly bars for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act from the purview of the Act. This apart, this Court had occasioned to consider an identical question in the case of State v. Ratan Lai Arora1 where it has been held that the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is inapplicable to a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This being the view, the impugned order of the High Court is a unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. The respondent Shri Kaliaperumal shall be taken back into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. Compliance within three weeks. 5. The appeal is allowed accordingly.