Supreme Court declines to minimize 26-year sentence of Indian person granted by Mauritius SC



BRAND-NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected to minimize the 26-year sentence granted to an Indian person by the Supreme Court of Mauritius for remaining in belongings of 152.8 grams of heroin.

Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed, that was later on repatriated to India under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 as well as reciprocal treaty with Mauritius, had actually looked for reducing of his jail term to 10 years under the Narcotics Drugs as well as Psychotropic Substances Act of 1994.

A bench of justices L Nageswara Rao as well as B R Gavai which permitted the charm of the Centre versus the Bombay High Court order guiding to minimize the sentence to 10 years stated, “The reasons recorded by the Central Government to reject the request for scaling down the sentence are in accordance with the provisions of the 2003 Act and the agreement entered into between India and Mauritius.”

The bench stated that the high court permitted the request just on the ground that there is conflict in between the sentence troubled the participant by the Supreme Court of Mauritius as well as a sentence that would certainly have been troubled the found guilty, if a comparable offense would certainly have been devoted in India.

“In doing so, the High Court failed to examine the statement of object and reasons for the 2003 Act, the scope of Sections 12 and 13 of the 2003 Act and the agreement for transfer of prisoners as entered into between Republic of India and Republic of Mauritius,” it stated.

The bench, after browsing the arrangements of the 2003 Act stated that the item of the legislation is to supply a possibility to the convicts to be repatriated to their nation to ensure that they can be closer to their households as well as have far better possibilities of rehab.

“One of the salient features of the 2003 Act is also that the enforcement of sentence of the repatriated prisoner has to be governed by the law of the receiving State, however in doing so, the receiving State is bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence as determined by the transferring State,” it stated.

The leading court stated that while running according to this item as well as attribute, Section 12 of the 2003 Act makes it clear that the transfer of a detainee that is a resident of India from a having State where he is undertaking sentence of jail time might be approved by the main government, based on particular problems that might be concurred in between India as well as the having State.

“The decision to be taken by the Government on the representation preferred for transfer, therefore, shall be subject to the agreement entered into between Republic of India and Republic of Mauritius regarding the transfer of prisoners. Article 8 of the said agreement categorically states that while continuing the enforcement of the sentence, India shall be bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence as determined by transferring State,” it stated.

It included that Article 8 (2) of the contract offers that if the sentence enforced by the moving State (Mauritius) is inappropriate with the legislation in India by its nature or period or both, the sentence might be adjusted by the finding State, particularly India in this instance.

“The adaptation shall be with regard to the duration or nature of punishment as prescribed by Indian law. However, Article 8 (2) further makes it clear that even when the sentence is adapted by the receiving State (India), the nature and duration of the punishment shall, as far as possible, correspond with that imposed by the transferring State (Mauritius),” the leading court stated.

Ahmed was moved to India on March 4, 2016 as well as on getting to India he made a depiction to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to reduce his sentence to 10 years from 26 years.

In the very same depiction, he additionally asked for that the sentence that he has actually currently undertaken in Mauritius might be taken into consideration for modification of his launch day.

By an order dated December 3, 2018, the MHA educated him that the duration invested by him in remand will certainly be subtracted from the sentence of 26 years as well as in an additional order handed down the very same day, the government had actually declined his ask for decrease of sentence to 10 years from 26 years.

This denial order was tested prior to the Bombay High Court, which on May 2, 2019, permitted his appeal as well as routed for decrease of sentence.