Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 865 (KAR)

Syed Shantaj v. Government Of Karnataka

2020-05-12

ABHAY S.OKA, B.V.NAGARATHNA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Our attention is invited to the order dated 23rd March 2020 passed by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020. On page 7 of the said order, the Apex Court directed each State/Union Territory to constitute a High Powered Committee of three members headed by the Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate. Accordingly, a Committee was constituted by the State of Karnataka which is headed by the learned Executive Chairman of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The Committee made certain recommendations in its meeting held on 30th March 2020 (Annexure-C). 3. The first prayer in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C) is for quashing the decision of the High Powered Committee. The second prayer is a consequential prayer to issue a direction to release all the prisoners in the light of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the aforesaid order. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner has being convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the said Act of 1881). He is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.34,50,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of one year. The challenge of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the recommendations incorporated in the minutes of the meeting dated 30th March 2020 is on the ground that there was no necessity to exclude the category of the prisoners who are convicted for the offences punishable under the said Act of 1881 considering the spirit of the order of the Apex Court. The submission in short is that as the category in which the petitioner falls is not covered by the decision taken by the High Powered Committee on 30th March 2020, the petitioner will be denied the benefit of the order of the Apex Court. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions. The submission in short is that as the category in which the petitioner falls is not covered by the decision taken by the High Powered Committee on 30th March 2020, the petitioner will be denied the benefit of the order of the Apex Court. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions. A perusal of the order of the Apex Court dated 23rd March 2020 shows that the Apex Court has dealt with the issue of overcrowding of the prisons in different States in the context of possibility of transmission of COVID-19. Therefore, a direction has been issued by the Apex Court to constitute a monitoring team in each State for dealing with the issue regarding the steps taken to prevent transmission/spread of COVID-19 within the prisons. 6. By exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court constituted a High Powered Committee headed by the Chairman of the State Legal Services Authorities. The function of the High Powered Committee was to recommend which class of prisoners can be released on parole or on interim bail for the purpose of reducing congestion in the prisons. Accordingly, the Committee has done the exercise of identifying a category of prisoners who can be released on parole or released by grant of an interim bail. The Committee was constituted in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Committees job was to recommend the category of cases for release on parole or for grant of interim bail. Even if certain category of prisoners is not included in the recommendations made by the Committee, the remedies available to the prisoners (both convicted and undertrails) under the Constitution of India and the Cr.P.C are not taken away. For example, in case of an undertrial, he can always take recourse to the provisions for the grant of bail under the Cr.P.C and the concerned Court competent to decide the application for grant of bail is not precluded from deciding the applications on its own merits irrespective of the recommendations of the Committee. In case of the convicts, who are undergoing sentence, the remedy of applying for suspension of sentence in substantive appeals preferred against the order of conviction always remains open. If some convict is denied release on parole, his remedy to challenge the rejection of the application for parole is always open. 7. In case of the convicts, who are undergoing sentence, the remedy of applying for suspension of sentence in substantive appeals preferred against the order of conviction always remains open. If some convict is denied release on parole, his remedy to challenge the rejection of the application for parole is always open. 7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, no interference can be made by Writ Court with the recommendations made by the High Powered Committee constituted by the Apex Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 8. Subject to what is observed above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, the petition is rejected. 9. In view of disposal of the petition, the pending interlocutory application stands disposed of.