Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
CHARANJIT KAUR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/02/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 492 JT 1996 (3) 30
1996 SCALE (2)380
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal special leave arises from the order of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana made on January 6, 1995 in
C.N. No.6872/95. The admitted facts are that the respondent
was convicted for an offence of murder and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life. Admittedly, she was convicted
on June 2, 1984 for an offence committed on September 24,
1983. She has been in custody from September 19, 1983. An
application has been filed in the High Court for her
premature release. In the impugned order, the High Court has
directed the release of the respondent on the ground that
the State had not filed the counter-affidavit, in spite of
that fact that the case was adjourned on more than three
occasions. The question is: whether the High Court has
jurisdiction under Article 226 or under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the "Code") to
release the prisoner.
Section 433 of the Code empowers the Government, in an
appropriate case, without the consent of the person
sentenced, to commute the sentence and to prematurely
release the convict. Clause (b) thereof provides for a
sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a
term not exceeding 14 years or fine. Indisputably, she did
not even complete 14 years which is a minimum mandatory
sentence required to be served under the Code. At best the
Court, in an appropriate case, where the prisoner has served
the mandatory minimum sentence, may only direct the
appropriate Government to consider the commutation of the
sentence and prematurely release a particular convict. The
can do no further. The Government would consider such
direction based upon the conduct of the prisoner and other
relevant circumstances and act upon it.
Thus considered, we are of the view that the High Court had
committed grave error of law in directing release of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
convict on the lapse on the part of the appellant-State in
filing the counter-affidavit.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.