Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF PUNJAB
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KESAR SINGH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/07/1996
BENCH:
ANAND, A.S. (J)
BENCH:
ANAND, A.S. (J)
MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (5)444
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Special leave granted.
The respondent was convicted for an offence under
Section 3022/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment by the judgment and order dated May 28, 1987.
After he had undergone a little more than 8 years of
sentence he filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh seeking premature release. The High Court by
the impugned order dated January 18, 1986 considered the
case on its merits and allowed the petition directing the
release of the respondent forthwith. The State is aggrieved
of the order dated January 18, 1986, hence this appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our
opinion the direction given by the High Court was not at all
appropriate or permissible in law. The mandate of Section
433 Cr.P.C. enables the Government in an appropriate case to
commute the sentence of a convict and to prematurely order
his release before expiry of the sentence as imposed by the
courts. Clause (b) of Section 433, Cr.P.C. provides that the
sentence of imprisonment for life may be commuted for
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or fine.
Undisputedly, the respondent had not completed 14 years
sentence when he filed the petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. seeking premature release. The direction of the High
Court therefore to prematurely release the respondent and
set him at liberty forthwith could not have been made. That
apart, even if the High Court could give such a direction,
it could only direct cunsideration of the case of premature
release by the Government and could not have ordered the
premature release of the respondent itself. The right to
exercise the power under Section 433 Cr.P.C. vests in the
Government and has to be exercised by the Government in
accordance with the rules and established principles. The
impugned order of the High Court cannot, therefore be
sustained and is hereby set aside.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
This order shall however, not come in the way of the
respondent for approaching the Government for term of the
order issued by the Governor of Punjab on March 6, 1985. As
and when such an application is made the State Government
shall decide that application on merits uninfluenced by this
order or by the observations made by the impugned order.