Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Roger Shashoua V/s. Mukesh Sharma reported in (2017) 14 SCC 722.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7866/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2023 undefined

7. Rohan Dhungat V/s. State of Goa reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 16.

5.1. At outset, Mr. MTM Hakim, learned advocate had invited attention of this Court to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Latif Chhmtumiya Shaikh V/s. State of Gujarat reported in 2000 SCC OnLine Guj 197. While referring to the questions framed by the Larger Bench in the aforesaid reference, he emphasised on the fact that the Court was called upon to decide as to whether the grant of parole, furlough or bail to an accused convicted of an offence under TADA/NDPS would amount to suspension of sentence. In light of the controversy involved, the Larger Bench had examined relevant provisions under NDPS Act, more particularly, Section 32A which deals with the subject that no suspension, remission or commutation in any sentence be awarded under the aforesaid Act. He further submitted that noticing the aforesaid mandate of the legislation, Larger Bench held that there is no question of releasing the convict on parole leave or furlough leave which would amount to suspension of sentence temporarily. With respect to the case under TADA Act, the Larger Bench was of the view that the erroneous exercise of powers by the NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7866/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2023 undefined authority can always be interfered with by the High Court. However, the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India should be cautious of the fact that the Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the competent Court or the authority. Thus, when the decision is perverse or where no reasonable person could have arrived at such a decision, it is only then the High Court can intervene. While answering to question no.4, the Bench had taken into consideration the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Jayant Veerappa Shetty V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1985 CLR Maharashtra 598 wherein the Division Bench held that the power of grant of parole cannot be exercised by administration where the appeals of convicts concerned are pending and such persons can be released on bail only by the appellate Court under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C not by the administration. Thus, the Larger Bench had arrived at a conclusion that the only provision empowering the Court to release the convict pending the appeal is by way of bail under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C.