Back
B.S.CHAUHAN, FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.2.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc. No. 63845-M of 2006, wherein the High Court has upheld the validity of the letter dated 28.6.2006 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana, giving effect to the provisions of Section 32-A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `NDPS Act’).
2. The High Court referring to various provisions of the Punjab Jail Manual held that the appellants are not entitled to any remission in view of the provisions of Section 32-A of NDPS Act. Section 32-A of the NDPS is reproduced herein as under:
“32A. No suspension, remission or commutation in any sentence awarded under this Act.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of Section 33, no sentence awarded under this Act (other than Section 27) shall be suspended or remitted or commuted.”
3. The High Court has held that legal provisions concerning remission are governed by the statutory provisio
No cases explicitly identified as overruled, reversed, abrogated, or otherwise treated as bad law. No keywords such as "overruled", "reversed", "abrogated", or phrases indicating invalidation (e.g., "no longer good law") appear in the provided list.
Union of India VS V. Sriharan @ Murugan - Crimes (2015): Cited with "(supra)" alongside other cases (Mahender Singh, State of Haryana Vs. Jagdish, Sangeet Vs. State of Haryana, Laxman Naskar), indicating approval or following in subsequent decisions. Reference to "paras 27 and 38" suggests reliance on specific holdings.
Union of India VS V. Sriharan @ Murugan - 2015 8 Supreme 449: Identical citation pattern to Union of India VS V. Sriharan @ Murugan - Crimes (2015) with "(supra)", indicating followed or approved.
Satyavrat Rai VS State of U. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(All) 281: Cited with "(supra)" and explicitly states "This was settled in Godse which view has since then been followed consistently in State of Haryana v.", showing consistent following.
Satyavrat Rai VS State of U. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(All) 279: Identical to Satyavrat Rai VS State of U. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(All) 281, indicating followed.
Coir Board, Ernakuam, Kerala State VS Indira Devi P. S - 1998 0 Supreme(SC) 1124: States "the binding nature of judgments by larger benches on smaller benches", describing a principle of adherence, implying the case itself affirms or is treated as followed precedent.
State of Haryana VS Jagdish - 2010 2 Supreme 500: States "The policy prevailing at the time of consideration of premature release shall be applicable.", presented as a definitive rule without negative treatment, suggesting affirmation.
Dadu @ Tulsidas: Jiti VS State Of Maharashtra: Union Of India - 2000 7 Supreme 38: Declares specific holdings on constitutionality (e.g., "Section 32A ... is unconstitutional" in part, "valid" in part), indicative of applied binding precedent. Contrasts with Jitender Singh VS State of Haryana - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 1461's reference to a later case on the same section, but no negative treatment here.
Jitender Singh VS State of Haryana - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 1461: References State of Maharashtra (2008) 8 SCC 437 holding "Section 32A was not unconstitutional insofar as denial of remission", which limits or distinguishes the partial unconstitutionality holding in Dadu @ Tulsidas: Jiti VS State Of Maharashtra: Union Of India - 2000 7 Supreme 38, but the case itself is cited neutrally.
STATE OF U. P. VS SANJAY KUMAR - 2012 5 Supreme 581: Discusses "Imprisonment for life vis-à-vis power of clemency; S. 433-A, Cr. P.C. and Jail Manual" without explicit treatment indicators, serving as illustrative precedent.
Epuru Sudhakar VS Govt. of A. P. - 2006 7 Supreme 539: Outlines scope of judicial review (e.g., "judicial review ... is available when...") and clemency considerations, presented affirmatively without negative or comparative treatment.
Pradip Chandra Parija VS Pramod Chandra Patnaik - 2001 8 Supreme 548: Describes procedural limits ("Two learned judges ... cannot disagree ... At the most ... could have ordered..."), which implies criticism of a prior bench's approach but does not explicitly overrule or reverse any cited case. Treatment of this case itself is unclear—potentially illustrative of hierarchy but ambiguous without "(supra)" or direct follow/overrule language.
Union Of India VS Hansoli Devi - 2002 6 Supreme 294: States a procedural entitlement ("Dismissal ... would tantamount to not filing... entitled to make an application"), phrased affirmatively but lacks clear treatment indicators like "(supra)" or follow/overrule phrases. Ambiguous whether this reflects the case's holding or a new ruling.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
