Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Kartik Subramaniam - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Another - Respondent
W.P.(Crl). No. 1642 of 2020 & Crl.M.A. No. 13947 of 2020
Decided On : 25-01-2021
CRIMINAL - SENTENCING - PREMATURE RELEASE - CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CONSENT - ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE - SRB GUIDELINES - RELEVANT FACTORS - EXEMPLARY CONDUCT - NO COGENT REASONS FOR OPPOSITION - CONSENT MANDATORY - ARTICLE 14 VIOLATION - ORDERS QUASHED - PREMATURE RELEASE DIRECTED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, serving life sentence, challenged orders declining to concur with Sentence Review Board (SRB) and Government of NCT of Delhi's recommendation for premature release. SRB recommended release four times, but Central Government did not concur. Petitioner claimed decision was arbitrary and unreasonable, violating guidelines and Article 14. Central Government argued consent was mandatory and SRB guidelines were not binding.
Finding of the Court:
1. Central Government's consent for premature release is mandatory under Section 435 CrPC, as interpreted in Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan. 2. SRB guidelines, derived from National Human Rights Commission proceedings, are relevant but not binding on Central Government. 3. Central Government's decision must be informed by reason and cannot be arbitrary. 4. Petitioner's conduct in jail was exemplary, with numerous certificates and letters of appreciation. 5. CBI's opposition to release was without cogent reasons and did not consider petitioner's conduct or reformative process. 6. Central Government's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violated Article 14.
Issues: 1. Whether Central Government's consent for premature release is mandatory. 2. Whether SRB guidelines are binding on Central Government. 3. Whether Central Government's decision must be informed by reason and cannot be arbitrary. 4. Whether petitioner's conduct in jail was exemplary. 5. Whether CBI's opposition to release was based on cogent reasons.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Central Government's consent for premature release is mandatory under Section 435 CrPC, as interpreted in Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan. 2. SRB guidelines, derived from National Human Rights Commission proceedings, are relevant but not binding on Central Government. 3. Central Government's decision must be informed by reason and cannot be arbitrary, as per Maru Ram v. Union of India & Ors. 4. Petitioner's conduct in jail was exemplary, with numerous certificates and letters of appreciation. 5. CBI's opposition to release was without cogent reasons and did not consider petitioner's conduct or reformative process.
Final Decision: Impugned orders declining to concur with SRB's recommendation for premature release were set aside as arbitrary and unreasonable. Respondents were directed to forthwith process petitioner's premature release in terms of SRB recommendations and approval by Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi.
JUDGMENT :
1. 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 of committing the offence. As
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
