Collateral writ review barred for final Supreme Court judgments; Section 364A covers private ransom kidnappings and remains constitutionally valid.

A final judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be reopened through collateral writ proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 once the issue has been decided on merits; reconsideration lies only through the Court's exceptional constitutional powers. Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code is not confined to ransom cases involving the Government, a foreign State or an international inter-governmental organisation: its text and structure cover kidnapping or abduction for ransom by private persons as well. The provision's punishment scheme is not unconstitutional merely because it permits death or life imprisonment, since sentencing discretion remains with the court and the penalty is not shown to be grossly disproportionate.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ petition before the High Court could be maintained to reopen a final judgment of the Supreme Court and re-agitate a contention already decided in the criminal appeal; (ii) whether Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code is confined to ransom situations involving the Government, a foreign State or an international inter-governmental organisation, and whether the punishment prescribed by that provision is unconstitutional.

Issue (i): whether a writ petition before the High Court could be maintained to reopen a final judgment of the Supreme Court and re-agitate a contention already decided in the criminal appeal.

Analysis: A final judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be challenged again in collateral proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India once the issue has been raised and rejected on merits. The only permissible avenue for reconsideration of such a final judgment is by invoking the Supreme Court's own constitutional powers in the exceptional situation recognised in precedent.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in law insofar as it sought to reopen the Supreme Court's final judgment.

Issue (ii): whether Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code is confined to ransom situations involving the Government, a foreign State or an international inter-governmental organisation, and whether the punishment prescribed by that provision is unconstitutional.

Analysis: The text, history and structure of Section 364A show that the expression "any other person" was intended to include private persons as well, and the provision was enacted to address kidnapping and abduction for ransom generally, not merely terrorist hostage-taking. The later amendment only expanded the provision to expressly include foreign States and international inter-governmental organisations. The provision also does not suffer from unconstitutional arbitrariness merely because it permits death or life imprisonment, since sentencing discretion remains with the court and the punishment is not shown to be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.

Conclusion: Section 364A applies to kidnapping for ransom by private persons also, and its sentencing scheme is constitutionally valid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's judgment failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the appellants' attempt to reopen their final conviction and sentence was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A final judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be re-agitated in collateral writ proceedings, and Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code applies broadly to kidnapping or abduction for ransom by any person while its punishment scheme remains constitutionally permissible.

---