Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Mohan Babu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 July, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1624 OF 2022
MOHAN BABU Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1427 OF 2024
PALANI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE REPRESENTED
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondent(s)
ORDER
1. Heard learned senior counsel and learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 1624 of 2022
2.1. By a judgment dated 24.07.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions
Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Tindivanam1 in S.C. Case No. 211 of 2005, the
appellant – Mohan Babu (A4) was convicted for the offences under Sections 452, 395,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
and 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602, and sentenced to undergo rigorous
Date: 2026.07.10
16:43:30 IST
Reason:
1 In short, “trial Court”
2 In short, “IPC”
imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default whereof to
undergo further period of one year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section
452 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- in default whereof to undergo further period of one year rigorous
imprisonment for the offence under Section 395 IPC; to undergo life imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default whereof, to undergo further period of one
year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 396 IPC. All the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
2.2. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 2007
before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. Upon hearing the parties and on
perusal of the material on record, the High Court by judgment dated 02.07.2008,
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by
the trial Court. Assailing the said judgment, the appellant has preferred the present
criminal appeal.
2.3. As per the custody certificate placed on record, the appellant has undergone
more than fourteen years of incarceration. Taking note thereof, this Court by order
dated 01.10.2021, granted interim bail to the said appellant.
2.4. Having considered the matter in its entirety and upon perusal of the material
available on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by the trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court. This appeal is
accordingly, liable to be dismissed.
2.5. However, considering the fact that the appellant has already undergone more
than fourteen years of imprisonment, liberty is granted to the appellant to approach the
appropriate Government by filing an application seeking remission, if not already
filed, in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and the prevailing
remission policy.
2.6. This Court by a detailed order dated 18.02.2025 passed in Suo Motu Writ
Petition (Crl) No. 4 of 2021, while issuing certain directions to the States and Union
Territories, categorically observed that the applications seeking pre-mature release /
remission should be considered as expeditiously as possible and without undue delay.
2.7. Therefore, if such an application is filed, or is already pending, the competent
authority shall consider and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance
with law, uninfluenced by the dismissal of the present appeal, and keeping in view the
aforesaid order dated 18.02.2025, within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of the application, or where the application is already pending, within three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
2.8. The interim bail granted to the appellant shall continue and shall remain
operative until the competent authority passes appropriate orders on the appellant’s
application seeking remission.
3. Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2024
3.1. By a judgment dated 24.07.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions
Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Tindivanam3 in S.C. Case No. 211 of 2005, the
appellant – Palani (A3) was convicted for the offences under Sections 452, 395, 396
and 323 IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default whereof to undergo further period of one year
simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 452 IPC; to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default whereof to
undergo further period of one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under
Section 395 IPC; to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in
default whereof, to undergo further period of one year rigorous imprisonment for the
offence under Section 396 IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for
the offence under Section 323 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
3.2. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 788 of 2007
before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. Upon hearing the parties and perusing
the material on record, the High Court by judgment dated 02.07.2008, dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
3.3. Assailing the said judgment, the appellant has preferred the present criminal
appeal.
3 In short, “trial Court”
3.4. Having considered the matter in its entirety and upon perusal of the material
available on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by the trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court. This appeal is
accordingly, liable to be dismissed.
3.5. However, considering the fact that the appellant has undergone more than
twenty years of incarceration, liberty is granted to the appellant to approach the
appropriate Government by filing an application seeking remission in accordance with
the applicable statutory provisions and the prevailing remission policy. In the event
such application is filed, the competent authority shall consider and pass appropriate
orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the dismissal of the
present appeal, and keeping in view the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by this Court
in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021, within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of the application.
3.6. Taking note of the long period of incarceration undergone by the appellant, he
shall be released on interim bail, if not required in any other case, on such terms and
conditions as may be imposed by the trial Court. The interim bail so granted shall
remain operative until the competent authority passes appropriate orders on the
appellant’s application seeking remission.
4. The Criminal Appeals are dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.
5. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………………………………J.
(R. MAHADEVAN )
…………………………………………………J.
(MANMOHAN)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 10, 2026
ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1624/2022
MOHAN BABU Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondent(s)
WITH
Crl.A. No. 1427/2024 (II-C)
Date : 10-07-2026 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
(PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH)For Appellant(s) Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, AOR
Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv.
Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Mangla, AOR
Ms. Safeena Khan, Adv.
Ms. Monika, Adv.
Mr. Hrithik Jarodia, Adv.
Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Manasi Sridhar, Adv.
Ms. Nikita Gill, Adv.
Mr. Sushil Kumar Dubey, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. B. Karunakaran, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The Criminal Appeals are dismissed in terms of the
signed order.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (AVGV RAMU)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
