Held: Convict has to surrender to the sentence before filing the Special Leave Petition unless an application for exemption from surrendering is filed – Judge In-chambers has the power to exempt from surrendering or to refuse exemption – When a Judge In-Chamber grants time to surrender, at the next hearing, the Judge has to be informed as to whether the convict has surrendered or not – If exemption from surrendering is refused and the accused does not surrender, the matter should be placed before Chamber judge for non-prosecution – On facts, both the petitioners surrendered within the time granted by Supreme Court but however there was no communication forthcoming on or before the matter was listed in Chambers and due to lapse in the communication, Special Leave Petition were peremptory dismissed – Jail authorities were under obligation to communicate to the Court information about their surrender irrespective of whether the convict has engaged a counsel or not – This is a means of providing access to justice, a facet of Art. 21 – Petitioners, even though in custody, were not apprised by the jail authorities of the peremptory dismissal of the SLPs – Had they been communicated, they would have taken remedial steps without loss of time – Petition of petitioner No.1 was restored, however petition of petitioner No.2 abated – Urgent steps to be taken so that these eventualities do not occur again – In view thereof, guidelines necessary as to the further course of action, in cases where after refusal of exemption from surrendering, the information is not forthcoming to the Court – Judge In-Chambers can appoint an amicus curiae in cases where counsel is absent – Registry in such cases could call for a report from the trial judge who may, with appropriate directions to the concerned police and the Jail Authorities report the actual state of affairs – Guidelines. [Para 15-19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 29] Information and technology – Digitisation – Availability of upto date information for the court as regards surrender and custody particulars of the convicts – Need for:
Held: Mechanism to be evolved whereby, the Jail authorities would upload on a customised web portal, the surrender and custody particulars of the convicts with the corresponding numbers of the Criminal Appeals/Special Leave Petitions, such that all up to date information would be available on a click of a button. [Para 30]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam [2011] 3 SCR 209 : (2011) 4 SCC 729; Madan Lal Kapoor v. Rajiv Thapar and Others [2007] 9 SCR 686 : (2007) 7 SCC 623; Bani Singh and Others v. State of U.P. [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 247 : (1996) 4 SCC 720; Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh [1986] 1 SCR 590 : (1986) 2 SCC 401; Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra [1979] 1 SCR 192 : (1978) 3 SCC 544; Sunil Batra (II) vs. Delhi Administration [1980] 2 SCR 557 : (1980) 3 SCC
488 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.