Sentence Completion for Central Act Offences Negates Need for Central Government Consultation Under Section 435 CrPC

The petitioner’s father (the convict) was convicted on 20.10.2004 for offences under Sections 148, 341, 302 (5 counts) of the IPC and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and one-year rigorous imprisonment for the explosives offence, to run concurrently.

Having completed over 21 years of incarceration, the petitioner sought premature release.

The State rejected the representation via an order dated 05.06.2025, citing Paragraph 5(II)(3) of G.O.(Ms).No.64 (2018), which precludes remission for cases falling under Section 435 of the CrPC.

The State contended that because the convict was sentenced under a Central Act (Explosive Substances Act), mandatory consultation/concurrence with the Central Government was required, and the State’s policy was to exclude such convicts entirely.

1. Whether the rigour of Section 435 CrPC (requirement of Central Government consultation) applies to a plea for premature release when the restorative sentence for the Central Act offence has already been fully served.

2. Whether the exclusionary condition in G.O.(Ms).No.64/2018 regarding Section 435 CrPC operates as an absolute bar even if the convict is currently only serving the sentence for IPC offences.

Section 435 of the CrPC, which mandates State consultation with the Central Government for remitting sentences involving Central Agency investigations, Central property damage, or offences by Central employees.

The Constitution Bench ruling in Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan, which clarified that executive power is offence-specific and that if a sentence under a Central Law is already undergone, there is no "occasion to seek any remission" on that count.

The principle from Rajan v. Home Secretary, holding that Section 435 is irrelevant once the specific sentence for the qualifying Central offence is completed.

The Court rejected the State’s literal and restrictive interpretation of G.O. No. 64. It reasoned that since the convict’s one-year sentence under the Explosive Substances Act expired on 20.10.2005, his current incarceration is solely attributable to the IPC life sentence.

Citing Sriharan and Rajan, the Bench observed that Section 435 CrPC is intended to protect the Union's executive terminal interests; if the sentence for the Central offence is extinguished, no "remission" is technically being sought for that specific offence, thereby removing the need for Central consultation.

The Court highlighted that the State’s own subsequent policy (G.O. Ms. No. 430, 2023) explicitly permits premature release if the Central Act sentence has been undergone, proving that the State's current objection contradicted its evolving legal stance and judicial precedents.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s representation for premature release on merits within four weeks.

The Court issued a general direction to the Registrar (IT) to implement the "E-Prisons Early Release Processing Module" (following Supreme Court directions in Surendra @ Sunda v. State of UP) starting with a pilot project at Puzhal prison to automate and expedite future remission claims.