RAJAN versus THE HOME SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 1035 · Decided: 25-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1035
           RAJAN
   v.
        THE HOME SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT  OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
   (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 321 of  2018)
    APRIL 25, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing:
Remission of sentence – Petitioner was sentenced to 7 years
RI for offence punishable u/s. 395 IPC and for 5 years imprisonment
for offences punishable u/s. 3/25(1A) of Arms Act – Further he was
sentenced to life sentence for the offences punishable u/ss. 307
IPC (4 counts) and 302 IPC (3 counts) and u/s. 27(3) of Arms Act –
Petitioner’s representation for premature release moved in the year
2010 was rejected – Thereafter another representation was moved
in the year 2018 for premature release – Getting no response to the
representation, he filed present writ petition – Held: Section 27(3)
of Arms Act, having been declared ultra vires and unconstitutional,
conviction and sentence thereunder cannot be reckoned in law for
considering the representation – Representation for remission of
sentences awarded for the offences punishable u/s.395 IPC and u/
ss. 3/25 (1A) also cannot be considered as the petitioner has already
undergone the sentence period – Representation has to be considered
only in respect of sentence of life imprisonment concerning offences
punishable u/ss. 302 and 307 IPC – The Competent Authority is
directed to process the representation of the petitioner – Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 432 and 433.
Remission of sentence – Held: Grant or non-grant of remission
is prerogative to be exercised by the Competent Authority in exercise
of powers conferred u/ss. 432 and 433 of Cr.P.C. – It is not for the
Court to supplant that procedure – Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 – ss. 432 and 433.
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 1035
     1035
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1036
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
Disposing of the petition, the Court
HELD:  1. Section 27(3) of the Arms Act having been
declared ultra vires in terms of the judgment of Supreme Court in
*State of Punjab the conviction and sentence awarded to the
petitioner in  relation to the said offence  cannot be reckoned in
law. Even so, the petitioner is faced with the conviction and
sentence awarded for other serious offences under Section 395
IPC for 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment, as also under Section 3
read with Sections 25(1A) and 27(3) of the Arms Act with
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the said
offences. However, in view of the exposition of the Constitution
Bench in **Muthuramalingam case, the sentences in respect of
offences under Section 395 IPC and Section 3/25(1A) of the Arms
Act also cannot be reckoned for considering the proposal for
premature release of the petitioner, for, he has already undergone
the sentence periods awarded for the said offences which were
to run concurrently. [Para 10][1044-D-F]
**Muthuramalingam and Ors. v. State represented by
Inspector of Police (2016) 8 SCC 313 : [2016] 5 SCR
30  –  followed.
*State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh (2012) 3 SCC 346 :
[2012] 4 SCR 608  – relied on.
2. Remission or commutation granted by the competent
authority for any one of the offences does not ipso facto result in
release of the prisoners for other offences for which he has been
convicted and sentenced at one trial. [Para 12][1047-A]
3. In the present case, no doubt the petitioner has been
convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under the Arms
Act as a result of which the requirement of “consultation” may
have triggered. However, the conviction and sentence in
reference to the offence under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act,
having been declared ultra vires and unconstitutional; and the
sentence awarded to the petitioner in reference to offence under
Section 3 read with Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act having already
been completed by the petitioner as it was to run concurrently
with life imprisonment, even these offences cannot be reckoned
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1037
for considering the representation made by the petitioner.
Resultantly, there would be no need to consult the Central
Government and, for the same reason, the presence of Central
Government in this petition is not essential. The representation
of the petitioner will have to be considered only in reference to
the sentence of life imprisonment concerning offences under
Sections 302 and 307 of IPC, respectively. [Paras 13 and 14]
[1047-C-E; 1048-D]
4. The petitioner has been convicted on 3 counts for offence
under Section 302 IPC and on 4 counts 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.