VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The offences excluded from the benefit of remission under the impugned notification under Section 432 of Cr.P.C. 1973 has been properly classified which have a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. gravity of offence.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 432-Notification under by State Government for remission of sentence excluding certain offences according to its gravity-Respondent, convicted for rape, not entitled to said remission, challenged in writ-High Court set it aside as discriminatory under Article 14 and directed remission to be given to respondent-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether High Court was right? (No)-Whether Section 433A of code restricts power under Section 432? (No)-Appeal allowed-Whether remission given to respondent be disturbed? (No)-Appeal allowed to that extent.
       Held after the case law : From the above observations of this Court, it is clear that the gravity of the offence can form the basis of a valid classification if the object of such classification is to grant or not to grant remission. (Para 11)
       Held further : That the offences excluded from the benefit of remission under the impugned notification have been properly classified which classification, in our opinion, is a valid classification for the purpose of making them ineligible for the grant of remission. (Para 15)
       Held also : That by introduction of Section 433A of the Code, the Parliament has not excluded or denuded the power of the appropriate Government to restrict the grant of remission to a class of prisoners only or exclude a class of prisoners from such benefit of remission. (Para 16)
       Held, however : Before we conclude, we must note that the notification in question was valid only for the year 1995 and the respondent herein having been given the benefit of remission by the High Court as far back as on 20-10-2001, we do not think the interest of justice requires us to interfere with that benefit given to the respondent. We, however, as stated above, uphold the classification made by the State Government in the impugned notification. (Para 17)
       Held finally : For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds to the extent indicated hereinabove, and is thus disposed of. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.- In this appeal the State of Haryana is challenging the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh rendered in Crl. Misc. No. 2176-M/2000 dated 26.4.2001.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that while the respondent was serving a sentence of 7 years RI for having committed an offence of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC, the Government of Haryana, on the eve of the Independence Day, issued a notification dated 14.8.1995 in exercise of its power vested under Section 432 of the Code, granting remission of prison sentence to all convicts except those excluded in the said notification. The said notification excluded such convicts who had been convicted for the offences of rape, dowry death, abduction and murder of a child below 14 years, unnatural offences, robbery, persons sentenced under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) , TADA, the Foreigners Act, Passport Act, the persons detained under the detention laws, the persons sentenced under Sections 2 and 3 of the Criminal Laws Amendment Act, the persons convicted under Sections 121 and 130 of the IPC, and the convicts guilty of violation of Jail Manual.

3. Because of the above exclusion of certain offences from the benefit of remission under the notification, the respondent became ineligible for such remission, therefore, he questioned the classification of offences for the purpose of denying remission in a petition filed before the High Court alleging that the said classification amounts to discrimination, thus, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The High Court accepting the said argument and following an earlier judgment of the same court made in Crl. Misc. No. 21746-M of 1998 - Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana - came to the conclusion that it is not open to the State Government while granting general remission to carve out special exceptions in cases which, according to it, could be termed as heinous offences and deny the benefit of remission to such class of convicts, therefore, while allowing the petition, it directed State Government to grant the benefit of remission to the respondent also.

4. It is necessary to note herein that the High Court in the previous petition, namely, that of Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana (supra) following a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Jagaram & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (1986 Crl. L.J. 1424) had come to the conclusion that the State had no power to place a restriction on the grant of remission because such power of restriction has already been exercised by the Parliament while amending Section 433A of the Code. It also held that the classification of convicts based on the nature of offences committed by them for the purpose of granting remission is impermissible and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Though the State of Haryana had preferred an appeal to this Court as against the said judgment of the High Court in Suresh Kumar (supra), the said appeal - [Crl. A. No. 726 of 2000] - came to be dismissed by this Court on a concession made by the learned counsel for the parties, without going into the question of classification.

5. In this appeal, learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the classification of convicts based solely on their criminal acts is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He contended that for the purpose of granting remission, such classification would be a reasonable classification while Mr. Anil Hooda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent as an amicus curiae, contended that Section 432 of the Code being an enabling provision, the State Government while exercising the said power, cannot create a classification so as to deny a class of convicts the benefit of such remission while the said benefit was made available to another class of convicts. He also conten

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 192

VERY IMPORTANT POINTThe offences excluded from the benefit of remission under the impugned notification under Section 432 of Cr.P.C. 1973 has been properly classified which have a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. gravity of offence.

Cases Referred (3)

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The offences excluded from the benefit of remission under the impugned notification under Section 432 of Cr.P.C. 1973 has been properly classified which have a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. gravity of offence.