Central Govt. Can’t Withhold Consent For Remission Arbitrarily Without Considering Opinion Of State Govt.: Telangana HC Grants Interim Bail To Convict In MP Magunta Reddy's Murder Case

The Court was hearing a writ appeal filed by the wife of the Convict, who along with the others were convicted for murdering Magunta Subbarami Reddy, a Member of Parliament and his Personal Security Officer Chappidi Venkatratnam.

The Division Bench of Justice K Lakshman and Justice P Sree Sudha observed, “As stated above and as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the Central Government kept the remission application pending and has taken a stand before this Court that the offence committed by the appellant’s husband is grave and there is a likelihood of him committing the same again. This Court states that the stand taken by the Central Government is unjustified and is not supported by any material. The Central Government based its stand on the nature of the offence and has not stated if the appellant’s husband is not reformed. A bald statement that the appellant’s husband is still connected to the Naxalite movement and will join the same cannot justify the stand of the Central Government. The State Government has reiterated that the appellant’s husband has no links with the Naxalite movement and is now reformed. The Central Government without considering the opinion of the State Government cannot arbitrarily withhold its consent.”

Senior Advocate B Nalin Kumar appeared for the Petitioner while Advocate Sri Mukarjee and GP Samala Ravinder appeared for the Respondents.

An FIR was registered against the Appellant’s husband under Sections 302, 449, 307, 147,148, 149, 506, 397 r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25(1A) and 27(2) of Arms Act, 1959. The investigation was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) by the State.

The Sessions Court convicted the Appellant’s husband in 2000 under Sections 302, 449, 307, 149, 147, 148, 506 and 397 read with Section 120-B of IPC and Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302. Sentences for the other offences were directed to run concurrently.

An appeal and a subsequent Special Leave Petition were filed against the conviction, both were dismissed. Hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence attained finality. Afterwards, the Appellant’s husband applied for remission, which was not considered. Therefore, he filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court granted liberty to the Appellant’s husband to make an application for remission under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The Appellant’s husband made an application to the State of Telangana, which recommended the grant of remission to the Appellant’s husband. Then, various permissions from the Central Government were sought under Section 435 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC').

The Single Judge of the High Court recorded that the CBI in its counter affidavit stated that the case does not involve complicated issues of law and has no interstate ramifications. They were willing to abide by the orders of the Court. However, the Central Government failed to take any action on the appellant’s husband’s application and filed a counter affidavit stating that the appellant’s husband could not be released as he is a notorious criminal who was part of a banned Naxalite group. It was contended that, if the Appellant’s husband was released, he would rejoin the group and commit terrorist activities.

The Single Judge by the impugned order held that the Central Government’s stand that the appellant’s husband cannot be released on the ground that the offence is of a heinous nature cannot be justified. The Single Judge directed the Central Government to decide on the remission application of the appellant’s husband within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

The Division Bench, after considering arguments on behalf of the Union, State and the Appellant, raised three issues for its consideration: i. Whether the State Government was the ‘appropriate government’ to decide the Appellant’s husband’s case; ii. Whether the concurrence of the Central Government under Section 435 (1) of the CrPC was required in the present case; and iii. Whether the application of the Appellant’s husband for the remission of sentence deserved to be considered.

The Court referred to Section 432 of the CrPC which provides that the ‘appropriate government’ has the power to remit a sentence of punishment. Section 432(7) defines which government will be treated as ‘appropriate government’.

The Court referred to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sriharan (2016), which explained the test to determine ‘appropriate government’. The Court said that by applying the test laid down in the judgment, it had to decide which government has the law-making power in relation to an offence under Section 302 of the IPC. “Justice U.U. Lalit in his separate concurring opinion held that Section 302 relates to Enty I of List II of the Seventh Schedule. Therefore, the ‘appropriate government’ for remission of a sentence in relation to an offence under Section 302 is the State Government… Therefore, we hold that the ‘appropriate government’ in the present case is the State Government. It is the State Government which was empowered to grant remission.”, the Court observed as regards the first issue.

Qua second issue, the Court held that the concurrence/consent of the Central Government was required before granting remission to the appellant’s husband as the case was investigated by the CBI and the State Government was justified in seeking concurrence of the Central Government.

Finally, the Court, in respect of the third issue, observed that the Central Government, instead of deciding the appellant’s husband’s case on judicial parameters of reformation, kept his application pending and it took a stand that the appellant’s husband was a dreaded Naxalite and did not deserve leniency. The Court remarked that nothing was placed on record by the Central Government on the aspect of his reformation.

The Court said, “Under Section 435 of the CrPC, if the State Government recommends remission and seeks concurrence of the Central Government, the Central Government cannot keep such an application pending and also cannot withhold its consent arbitrarily. A duty is cast upon the Central Government to give cogent reasons for differing from the recommendation of the State Government to grant remission. A bald statement that the offender/convict will commit the offence again is not sufficient.”

Accordingly, the Court, while upholding the order passed by the Single Judge directing Centre to consider remission and granting interim bail to the Appellant’s husband, held: i. State Government was the appropriate Government to decide the appellant’s husband’s case seeking remission; ii. Concurrence/consent of the Central Government in terms of Section 435(1) of Cr.P.C. was required before granting remission to the Appellant’s husband; iii. The Central Government was directed to consider the remission application of the appellant’s husband afresh in terms of the applicable law and keeping the object of reformation in mind and shall complete the said exercise within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Cause Title: Joshi Madhavi v. Union of India and Ors.

Appearances:

Appellant: Senior Advocate B Nalin Kumar and Advocate T Rahul

Respondents: Advocate Sri Mukarjee, GP Samala Ravinder

Click here to read/download the Judgment