STATE OF M.P. v. ABDUL KADIR & ANR

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 430

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, A.K. GANGULY

Case summary

STATE OF M.P. v. ABDUL KADIR & ANR.pdf

Judgment text

[2009] 2 S. C. R. 430 STATE OF M. P. V. ABDUL KADIR & ANR. Criminal Appeal No. 1289 of 2002 FEBRUARY 13, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASf:>.. YAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ. ] . Madhya Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act, 1954 -Release on probation - Entitlement to - Murder - Life •, convict - High Court did not disc. uss the order 9f Probation Board and the reasons given by it for rejecting recommendation for his release on probation - Held : High ·Court did not consider the issues in the proper perspective - Directed High Court to re hear the matter, keeping in view the D . parameters indicated by this Court in Arvind Yadav's case. Respondent is a life convict. The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police recommended his release. on probation. But the Probation Board did not accept the recommendations. The State Government accepted the recommendations of the Probation Board.

Respondent filed writ petition seeking release under the provisions ·of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act, 1954 and the Rules made thereunder. A Single Judge of the High Court held that Respondent was · entitled to release on probation. The order was upheld by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: Neither the Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court discussed the reasons indicated -• by the Probation Board. The opinion of the Board shows that taking into account the gruesome nature of the --:... · STATE OF M. P. V. ABDUL KADIR & ANR. 431 murder and the background in which the murder was committed, the recommendations were not accepted. The State Government, Jail Department accepted the recommendations of the Probation Board. The Division Bench erroneously observed that the Single Judge had set aside the order of the Probation Board.

In fact, there is no such finding or conclusion recorded by Single I • Judge. Since the High Court has not considered the 'I issues in the proper perspective, it is directed to re hear .. the LPA on condonation of delay, keeping in view. the parameters indicated by this court in Arvind Yadav's case. [Paras 5, 6] [432-F, G; 435-C, D] Arvind Yadav v. Ramesh Kumar (2003) 6 SCC 144 relied on. Case Law Reference . '> (2003) s sec 144 relied on Para 5 ~ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1289 of 2002 --\ i From the final Judgement and Order dated 5. 12. 2001 of the High Court of Madhy Pradesh, Indore Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 412 of 2001. ,,. Vibha Datta Makhija, for the Appellant. S. Janani, for the Respondent. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. The State of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State.

In the Letters Patent Appeal challenge was to the order dated -- wed to the aforesaid extent. B. B. 8. Appeal allowed. .... ..