Sentence commutation rests with the appropriate Government, and courts cannot compel it or dilute minimum sentencing mandates.

The power to commute a sentence under Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure vests in the appropriate Government, not the High Court, which cannot itself order commutation or compel the Government to formalise it. The discretion must be exercised judicially, reasonably and in the public interest, with due regard to the nature of the offence, the circumstances justifying commutation and the legislative scheme, especially where a minimum sentence has been prescribed. Routine or mechanical commutation is impermissible because it would dilute the statutory mandate. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable, and the legal position on commutation was clarified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could itself commute the sentence under Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and direct the Government to formalise the commutation. (ii) Whether the power of commutation under Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vests in the appropriate Government and must be exercised in accordance with law, particularly where the legislature has prescribed a minimum sentence.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could itself commute the sentence under Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and direct the Government to formalise the commutation.

Analysis: The power to commute a sentence under Section 433(d) is statutorily vested in the appropriate Government. The High Court could not assume that power by issuing a mandatory direction that left no discretion with the Government. Earlier orders relied upon were treated as case-specific directions and not as a general rule authorising courts to usurp the statutory function of the Government.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to itself order commutation and compel the Government to formalise it.

Issue (ii): Whether the power of commutation under Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vests in the appropriate Government and must be exercised in accordance with law, particularly where the legislature has prescribed a minimum sentence.

Analysis: The statutory power under Section 433 is to be exercised by the appropriate Government in accordance with established principles, reasonably and rationally, keeping in view the nature of the offence, the circumstances warranting commutation, and the larger public interest. Where the legislature has mandated a minimum sentence, the power must be exercised with great circumspection so that the legislative mandate is not diluted by routine or mechanical commutation.

Conclusion: The power vests in the appropriate Government and cannot be exercised as a matter of routine; it must be used cautiously and in the public interest.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable, the legal position regarding commutation was clarified, and the appeal succeeded to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: A court cannot itself commute a sentence under Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or compel formal approval by the Government; the discretion to commute vests exclusively in the appropriate Government and must be exercised judicially, reasonably, and with due regard to statutory minimum sentencing and public interest.

---