1976 Supreme(SC) 473

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., M.H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
Amrit Bhushan Gupta, Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 1976,
D/- 29-11-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. K. Sinha, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. V. P. Raman, Addl. Sol. Genl. for India and Mr. Girish 609 Chandra advocate with him, for Respondents. Mr. Tek Chand Chandra (In person), for Applicant Intervenor.

Headnote:

Criminal Lunatics Act, 1800 - Lunatic Asylums Act, 1858 - Section 9 - Prisoners Act, 1900 - Section 30 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Term of detention or imprisonment – Appeal against conviction - Whether on the facts and circumstances of a particular case a convict alleged to have become insane appears to be so dangerous that he must not be let loose upon society lest he commits similar crimes against other innocent persons when released or because of his antecedents and character or for some other reason he deserves a different treatment are matters for other authorities to consider after a Court has duly passed its sentence - This Court when granting special leave in this case was obviously not aware of the facts stated above which were concealed - Learned Counsel for the appellant when asked to state the question of law which called for invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution could only submit that the provisions of Section 30 of Prisoners Act, 1900 should be applied to the petitioner - Lunatic Prisoners how to be dealt with Where it appears to the State Government that any person detained or imprisoned under any order or sentence of any Court is of unsound mind State Government may by a warrant setting forth the grounds of belief that the person is of unsound mind order his removal to a lunatic asylum or other place of safe custody within State there to be kept and treated as the State Government directs during remainder of the term for which he has been ordered or sentenced to be detained or imprisoned or if on the expiration of that term it is certified by a medical officer that it is necessary for safety of prisoner or others that he should be further detained under medical care or treatment then until he is discharged according to law - Where it appears to the State Government that prisoner has become of sound mind, the State Government shall by a warrant directed to the person having charge of the prisoner if still liable to be kept in custody remand him to the prison from which he was removed or to another prison within the State or if prisoner is no longer liable to be kept in custody order him to be discharged – Held, This argument is not open however to someone who believes that the primary aim of a penalty such as hanging is the protection of society by deterrence or elimination - Committee would have been more realistic if they had contented themselves with the observation that for at least four hundred years it had been accepted that common law forbade execution of madman although the institutional writers explanations were obviously speculative and odd and that certifiable insanity had been accepted as the modern equivalent of madness - Any further attempt to justify practice would have involved them in one sort of difficulty or another as Lord Goddard was to argue to Commission - Interesting as statements on and origins of Common Law rules on subject in England against execution of an insane person may be court in this country are governed entirely by our statute law on such a matter - Courts have no power to prohibit the carrying out of a sentence of death legally passed upon an accused person on ground either that there is some rule in Common Law of England against execution of an insane person sentenced to death or some theological religious or moral objection to it - Our statute law on subject is based entirely on secular considerations which place the protection and welfare of society in the forefront - What the statute law does not prohibit or enjoin cannot be enforced by means of a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution so as to set at naught a duly passed sentence of a Court of justice - Question whether on the facts and circumstances of a particular case, a convict, alleged to have become insane appears to be so dangerous that he must not be let loose upon society lest he commits similar crimes against other innocent persons when released, or, because of his antecedents and character, or, for some other reason he deserves a different treatment are matters for other authorities to consider after a Court has duly passed its sentence - Court have already indicated even circumstances in which the appellant committed the murders of which he was convicted are not before us - As the High Court rightly observed authorities concerned are expected to look into matters which lie within their powers And as President of India has already rejected the appellants mercy petitions court presume that all relevant facts have received due consideration in appropriate quarters - Appeal dismissed