LexYAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 12 S.C:-R. 689 YAKUBABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRAANDANR. WRIT PETITION (CRL.) N0.135 OF 2015 JULY30,2015 [DIPAK MISRA, PRAFULLA C. PANT AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] A B ,., Mercy petition: 1993 Bombay bomb blasts - Petitioner c convicted and awarded death sentence - Mercy petition rejected - Death warrant issued - Writ petition - Legal justifiability of warrant for execution of petitioner on 30. 7. 2013 assailed and direction sought for stay of execution till disposal of writ petition on the ground of not granting of 14 days' time D from the date of receipt of communication of rejection of the mercy petition - Held: Almost 22 years have passed since 1993 when the incident occurred - There was no error in the issue of the death warrant - When the first mercy petition was rejected on 11. 04. 2014, there was sufficient time available E to the petitioner to make arrangement for his family members to meet him in prison and make necessary worldly arrangements - He had adequate time to prepare himself to meet his Maker and to make peace with himself - The family was allowed to meet him whenever they desired as F per the Jail Manual- The rejection of the first mercy petition by the President of India could have been assailed before Supreme Cowt. but it was not done - It was not a case of such nature where it could be said that legal remedy was denied to the petitioner - The first mercy petition was G submitted by the brother of the petitioner, but the facts clearly showed that he was aware of the same- The present mercy petition was, therefore, not preferred by the petitioner for the first time and. therefore, 14 days' time should not be granted. H 689 . , . "'·" .. 690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015J 12 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. There is no ~ispute over the fact that the brother of the petitioner had submitted representation invoking the authority of the President of India under B Article 72 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner does not disown the submission of the petition by his brother on his behalf. In fact, he had communicated to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Nagpur, on 07.08.2013, informing him about receipt of the petition by the office C of the President o-f India so as to pursue the same. The said mercy petition stood rejected on 11.04.2014. The petitioner did not challenge the rejection of the mercy petition by the President of India and accepted his fate. [Para 6) [697 -A-CJ D 2. The mercy petition was preferred on 6.08.2013 and prior to that, the review petition was dismissed by circulation on 30.07 .2013 by the two-Judge Bench of this Court which had decided the appeal on 21.03.2013. As E is evident, the constitutional validity of the rule relating to review was called in question before this Court. The Constitution Bench in dealing with the said rule opined that in death cases, the matter should be heard by a three-Judge Bench and the revjew petition should be F heard in the open court by giving maximum time limit of 30 minutes to the convict. Since the petitioner had not filed a curative petition, he was entitled to seek reopening of the review petition, as per the liberty granted to certain categories of cases in Mohd. Arif Alias Ashfaq. G Accordingly, his review petition was heard by a three- Judge Bench in the open Court. After rejection of the said review petition on 09.04.2015, he filed a curative petition on 22.05.2015 which also got dismissed on 21.07 .2015. At this stage, it is imperative to state that H YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK ME MON v. STATE OF 691 MAHARASHTRA despite the Constitution Bench saying that there shall A be oral hearing of the application for review for a maximum period of 30 minutes, the review petition was heard for almost ten days. The purpose of mentioning the same is that ample opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. After rejection of the curative petition on B 21.07.2015, the petitioner submitted a mercy petition to the Governor, Maharashtra which was received on 22.07 .2015. He also submitted another mercy petition to the President of India which was received by the President of India at 2.00 p.m. on 29.07 .2015. Both these C mercy petitions were rejected. [Paras 7 to 9] [697-D-H; 698-A-C] 3. The question that emerges for consideration is whether on the ground of not granting of 14 days' time D from the date of receipt of communication of rejec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.