Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
com
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2016
(@ S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 7701 of 2012)
Appellant(s)
Versus
Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
The present appeal, by special leave, is directed
against the judgment and order dated August 23, 2012
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1620 of 2011
whereby the High Court entertaining the Writ Petition had
opined that the order dated 26.07.2011 passed by the
Government of Gujarat declining to grant the benefit of
premature release to the first respondent herein is illegal
and further directed the State Government to reconsider his
case and take a fresh decision in the light of the discussions
Page 1
LatestLaws.com
2
to the
Judge,
Ahmedabad
(Rural)
at
The
Mirzapur,
Page 2
LatestLaws.com
3
of 1997 and the said appeal was heard along with the
appeals preferred by other convicts.
1
(2001) 3 SCC 221
Page 3
LatestLaws.com
4
financial
condition
of
the
family
was
precarious.
the
first
respondent
from
Central
Prison,
release
was
considered
by
competent
for
premature
release
considering
the
Page 4
LatestLaws.com
5
and
The grievance of
The
order
dated
06.03.2009
was
again
2
2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 909 : (2007) 13 SCC 606
3
JT 1996 (3) SC 30 : 1996 (7) SCC 492
4
AIR 2000 SC 2762 : (2000) 7 SCC 626
Page 5
LatestLaws.com
6
by the State
as
required
under
the
manual,
the
State
was assailed before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 158
Page 6
LatestLaws.com
7
of 2011 and the High Court vide judgment and order dated
25.05.2011 directed the State to reconsider the premature
release taking note of the actual sentence of 14 years and
three months and more than 21 years including remission.
The High Court had directed the first respondent to be
released on parole subject to certain conditions. Pursuant
to
the order
passed by
Page 7
LatestLaws.com
8
It was also
Page 8
LatestLaws.com
9
Page 9
LatestLaws.com
10
5
AIR 1976 SC 2386 : (1976) 4 SCC 190
6
1982 (1) SCC 417
7
1989 (1) SCC 204
8
(2005) 7 SCC 417
Page 10
LatestLaws.com
11
Page 11
LatestLaws.com
12
The High
10
1998 (4) SCC 75
Page 12
LatestLaws.com
13
first
respondents
representation
in
the
light
of
the
Page 13
LatestLaws.com
14
15.
12
(1961) 3 SCR 440 : AIR 1961 SC 600
Page 14
LatestLaws.com
15
17.
and others13
preferred
by
him,
his
death
sentence
was
Page 15
LatestLaws.com
16
Page 16
LatestLaws.com
17
of
the
case
of
the
petitioner
by
the
of
certain
members,
and
enumerated
the
Page 17
LatestLaws.com
18
20.
dealing with a Writ Petition wherein the prayer was made for
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to set the petitioner at
liberty on the ground that he had remained in detention for
more than 21 years. It was contended that the length of the
duration of imprisonment for life is equivalent to 20 years
imprisonment and that too subject to further remission
admissible under law.
14
1962 Supp (1) SCR 567 : AIR 1962 SC 605
15
AIR 1945 PC 64
Page 18
LatestLaws.com
19
Page 19
LatestLaws.com
20
Page 20
LatestLaws.com
21
arises
in
accordance
with
the
discretion
In this
context, the larger Bench ruled thus: The manner of consideration of the petition
lies within the discretion of the President, and it
is for him to decide how best he can acquaint
himself with all the information that is necessary
for its proper and effective disposal. The
President may consider sufficient the information
furnished before him in the first instance or he
may send for further material relevant to the
issues which he considers pertinent, and he may,
if he considers it will assist him in treating with
the petition, give an oral hearing to the parties.
The matter lies entirely within his discretion. As
regards the considerations to be applied by the
President to the petition, we need say nothing
Page 21
LatestLaws.com
22
The Court
adverted to the facts of the case and held thus:In the present case, when the Governor was not
posted with material facts such as those
indicated above, the Governor was apparently
deprived of the opportunity to exercise the powers
in a fair and just manner. Conversely, the order
now impugned fringes on arbitrariness. What the
Governor would have ordered if he were apprised
of the above facts and materials is not for us to
consider now because the Court cannot then go
into the merits of the grounds which persuaded
the Governor in taking a decision in exercise of
the said power. Thus, when the order of the
Governor impugned in these proceedings is
subject to judicial review within the strict
Page 22
LatestLaws.com
23
17
(2000) 5 SCC 170
Page 23
LatestLaws.com
24
decision
Page 24
LatestLaws.com
25
canons
of
constitutionalism,
the
order
can
be
Page 25
LatestLaws.com
26
The
Page 26
LatestLaws.com
27
21
(2014) 4 SCC 242
Page 27
LatestLaws.com
28
29.
Page 28
LatestLaws.com
29
23
(1982) 2 SCC 177
24
(2004) 1 SCC 616
25
AIR 1974 SC 31 : (1974) 3 SCC 531
Page 29
LatestLaws.com
30
Page 30
LatestLaws.com
31
In the instant case, the High Court has opined that the
It is
Page 31
LatestLaws.com
32
Security.
Because
of
the
aforesaid
reasons
In Sunil Fulchand
of
that
the
exercise
of
the
said
power
is
Page 32
LatestLaws.com
33
Page 33
LatestLaws.com
34
New Delhi;
June 29, 2016
...............................J.
[Shiva Kirti Singh]
Page 34