Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Navas @ Mulanavas vs State Of Kerala on 8 February, 2023
Bench: K.M. Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 150 OF 2014
SUKH SAGAR MISHRA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Respondent(s)
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 185 OF 2014
O R D E R
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 150 OF 2014 This is a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It was filed in the year 2014. The relief sought in the writ petition is as follows:
“a) issue writ/s order/s or direction/s in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent State of U.P. to release the petitioner from jail after 20 years of retention in accordance with law; and
b) pass such further or other order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” The petitioner was convicted under Section 302/34, 307/34, 436, 286, 504 IPC and Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster Signature Not Verified and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. The criminal Digitally signed by Nidhi Ahuja Date: 2023.02.11 13:05:52 IST Reason: appeal came to be dismissed on 14.08.2013. The special leave 1 petition came to be dismissed on 02.05.2014. The order passed in the special leave petition reads as follows:
“Dismissed. However, this will not come in the way of the petitioner filing a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for appropriate relief(s).” This petition came to be filed thereafter apparently taking inspiration from the aforesaid order.
We may notice that a Constitution Bench in Union of India v. V. Sriharan Alias Murugan and Others (2016) 7 SCC 1 came to deal with the meaning of the word ‘life’ when a sentence of life is handed down by a Court. The judgment came to be pronounced after the filing of the present writ petition. Therein, this Court held, inter alia, as follows:
“177. Imprisonment for life in terms of Section 53 read with Section 45 of the Penal Code only means imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict. The right to claim remission, commutation, reprieve, etc. as provided under Article 72 or Article 161 of the Constitution will always be available being constitutional remedies untouchable by the Court.
178. We hold that the ratio laid down in Swamy Shraddananda (2) [Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 113] that a special category of sentence; instead of death can be substituted by the punishment of imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 14 years and put that category beyond application of remission is well founded and we answer the said question in the affirmative.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
State would point out that there is an extant policy dealing with remission. The case of the petitioner would be considered in terms thereof. He further assisted the Court 2 by pointing out that even when an application is not made by a convict in Form ‘A’, it is the duty of the State to process cases in accordance with the Policy.
Ms.V. Mohana, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Union of India would draw our attention to the findings in the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench that remission would require an application by the convict.
In view of the nature of the order we propose to pass, we ignore the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear today.
We dispose of the writ petition by directing the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for release after processing his case for remission in accordance with the extant Policy of the respondent No. 2-State, if not yet considered.
A decision in this direction will be taken as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three months from today.
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 185 OF 2014 Ms. Gwen Karthika, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in terms of the judgment of this Court reported in Union of India v. V. Sriharan Alias Murugan and Others (2016) 7 SCC 1, the petitioner has already been released. In view of this development, the writ petition is disposed of 3 recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
……………………………………………………………., J.
[ K.M. JOSEPH ] ……………………………………………………………., J.
[ HRISHIKESH ROY ] ……………………………………………………………., J.
[ B.V. NAGARATHNA ] New Delhi;
February 08, 2023.
4
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No. 1215/2011 NAVAS @ MULANAVAS Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA Respondent(s) [ TO GO BEFORE THREE HON'BLE JUDGES ] (IA No. 1768/2011 - GRANT OF BAIL) WITH W.P.(Crl.) No. 66/2014 (X) (FOR ON IA 7578/2014[ TO GO BEFORE THREE HON'BLE JUDGES ]) W.P.(Crl.) No. 150/2014 (X) W.P.(Crl.) No. 185/2014 (X) (IA No. 21224/2014 - GRANT OF BAIL) Date : 08-02-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA For Appellant(s) Ms. Gwen Karthika, Adv.
Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. Pankaj Kumar, AOR Mr. Anoop Kr. Chaudhary, Sr. Adv. Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Varun Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Yugal Kishor Prasad, Adv. Mr. Bikash Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Bishan Dass, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Deora, Adv. Mr. Shiv Dutt Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shiv Nath, Adv.
Mr. Jay Prakash Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Renjith. B, AOR Mr. Renjith B. Marar, Adv. Mrs. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Adv.5
Ms. Ashu Jain, Adv.
Mr. Davesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Mr. V Mohana, Sr. Adv.
Mrs. Saudamini Sharma, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. T S Sabarish, Adv.
Mr. K. Chandra Mohan, Adv. Ms. Sneha Botwe, Adv.
Ms. Harshita Sukhija, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mr. Abraham C Mathew, Adv. Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv.
Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv.
Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Vishal Bansal, Adv.
Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Mr. Niroop Sukirthy, Adv. Mr. Md. Ovais, Adv.
Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Adv.
Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Rahul Kaushik, AOR Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G. Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Ms. Shreya Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Ashish Madaan, Adv.
Ms. Ananaya Sahu, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shahrukh Ali, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Pranjal Kishore, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In W.P.(Crl.) No. 66/2014, Mr. Gopal Jha, learned 6 counsel appearing in behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh points out that he needs time as there is a change in counsel for the State.
Thereupon, learned Advocate on Record for the petitioner also submits that he may have some difficulty in assisting the Court next week.
List Criminal Appeal No. 1215/2011 and W.P.(Crl.) No. 66/2014 on 01st March, 2023, as Item No. 101.W.P.(Crl.) No. 150/2014 W.P.(Crl.) No. 185/2014
Writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications stand disposed of.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (RENU KAPOOR)
AR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[Signed order is placed on the file.] 7