State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram
Das, SLP (CRL.) No. 2328 of 2015
The legal matrix of the instant case lies in a narrow compass. The only point of controversy in the instant case
is that whether the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 could be
extended in a case where minimum sentence is provided and whether a sentence
less than the minimum sentence prescribed can be awarded in exercise of the
powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s
Judgment discussed the legal position by discussing some of the important case
laws such as Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat,
(2012) 7 SCC 80, wherein it was held that the constitutional powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution cannot, in any way, be controlled by any statutory
provision but at the same time, these powers are not meant to be exercised when
their exercise may come directly in conflict with what has been expressly provided
for in any statute dealing expressly with the subject.
With respect to the grant of
benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the case of State v.
Ratan Lal Arora, (2004) 4 SCC 590 was discussed wherein it was held that
in cases where an enactment enacted after the Probation Act prescribes
minimum sentence of imprisonment, the provisions of the Probation Act cannot be
invoked. In the same breath, the case of Mohd. Hashim v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others, (2017) 2 SCC 198, was also referred to wherein it
was held that when the legislature has prescribed minimum sentence without discretion,
the same cannot be reduced by the courts and a provision that gives
discretion to the court not to award minimum sentence cannot be equated with a
provision which prescribes minimum sentence.
Thus, it was ultimately held that
where minimum sentence is provided for, the Court cannot impose less than the
minimum sentence and, in such cases, avail to Article 142 of the Constitution
of India cannot be resorted to.
No comments:
Post a Comment