Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Kartik Subramaniam —Petitioner
versus
Union of India and Anr. —Respondents
W.P.(CRL) 1642 of 2020 and Crl.M.A. 13947 of 2020
Decided on 25.1.2021
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 432, 433 and 435—Commutation of life sentence—Necessity of consent of Central Government—Concurrence of Central Government for commuting or remitting petitioner’s sentence is mandatory—A statute does not become operative from date on which it is interpreted—It comes into force on date of its enactment, unless otherwise specified. (Paras 33 and 38)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 364A/365/368/324/506—Kidnapping, hurt and criminal intimidation—Life sentence—In terms of SRB Guidelines, every convicted prisoner who is sentenced to life imprisonment and is covered under provisions of Section 433-A of Cr.P.C., would be eligible for being considered for premature release from prison immediately after serving sentence of fourteen years of actual imprisonment (without remission)—Petitioner was aged about twenty-six years at the time of committing offence—As of date, petitioner has already served more than twenty-six years of his prison sentence—This includes over nineteen years of actual incarceration—Petitioner has right to be considered for premature release—Decision of Central Government to not concur with recommendation for premature release petitioner must be examined in context of petitioner’s right to be so considered—Appropriate government has power to suspend or remit sentence under Section 432 of Cr.P.C. and to commute sentence under Section 433 of Cr.P.C.—Although powers conferred under Sections 432 and 433 of Cr.P.C. are discretionary, wherever discretion is conferred, authority on which it is conferred must exercise it if purposes for which such power is granted, are met—A statutory power is also coupled with a duty to exercise the same for the purpose for which it is conferred—Impugned orders passed by Central Government must be informed by reason—In cases where Central Government declines its consent, it must be on consideration of relevant factors—Recommendation of SRB for premature release of petitioner is a well-considered one and unless there is any relevant reason to dissent from same, same is ought to be accepted—CBI has opposed petitioner’s release without examining petitioner’s conduct and other relevant facts—His conduct in jail premises has been exemplary—Impugned orders set aside—Respondents directed to forthwith process petitioner’s premature release in terms of recommendations of SRB and as approved byLt. Governor of Delhi. (Paras 8, 40, 41, 42, 47, 48, 60, 63, 71 & 72)
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J.—The petitioner – a convict serving life sentence – has filed the present petition impugning orders dated 26.05.2016, 29.06.2018 and 30.10.2019 issued by respondent no.1 declining to concur with the recommendation of the Sentence Review Board (hereinafter the SRB’) and the Government of NCT of Delhi for his premature release from imprisonment.
2. The petitioner’s premature release was recommended by the SRB and approved by the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi on four occasions. However, respondent no.1 did not concur with the said decision on the first three occasions and its decision on the recommendation made for the fourth time is pending consideration.
3. The petitioner claims that the decision of the Central Government to not concur with his premature release is arbitrary and unreasonable and contrary to the guidelines framed for the aforesaid purpose. It is contended that the impugned orders passed by the Central Government are unreasoned and therefore, liable to be set aside. The petitioner submits that he complies with the conditions as set out in the SRB Guidelines for premature release. His conduct during the period of his incarceration has been exemplary and has been recognized as such by the concerned authorities. The SRB had also found that he had lost his propensity to commit crime. It is submitted that in the given circumstances, there could be no possible objection to the petitioner’s premature release. In addition, it is also submitted that the Central Government’s consent for the petitioner’s premature release is not mandatory.
Factual Context
4. On 16.03.2001, RC 4(E)/2001/SIU-VII/EOU-IV/EO-II was registered with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), pursuant to a complaint lodged by one Mrs. Rehamat Siddiqui, which was forwarded to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by the Indian Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
5. Upon the investigation being concluded, the chargesheet was filed on 14.06.2001 against four persons including the petitioner. On 01.07.2002, charges were framed against the accused. And, they were tried for the charges framed against them.
6. By a judgment dated 18.03.2005, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 120-B read with Sections 364A/365/368/324/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter the ‘IPC’). By an order on sentence dated 19.03.2005, the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for committing the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 364A/365/368/324/506 of the IPC; (ii) imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 364A of the IPC read with Section 120-B of the IPC; (iii) rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 365 read with Section 120-B of the IPC; (iv) rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for committing an offence punishable under Section 368 read with Section 120-B of the IPC; (v) rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for committing an offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 120-B of the IPC; and (vi) rigorous imprisonment for six months for commission of an offence under Section 506 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.
7. The petitioner appealed against his conviction and the sentence awarded to him by filing an appeal before this Court (Crl. A. No. 355/2005). By a judgment dated 14.12.2007, this Court upheld the petitioner’s conviction for committing an offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC read with Section 364 of the IPC and Section 364A of the IPC read with Section 120-B of the IPC. However, the petitioner’s conviction for committing offences punishable under Sections 365/368/324/506 of the IPC read with Section 120-B of the IPC was set aside.
8. It is relevant to note that the petitioner was aged about twenty-six years at the time
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
