SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha, JJ.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MUKESH SHARMA – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3086 OF 2016
WITH
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GURUBUX SINGH alias BAKSHI SINGH – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3092 OF 2016
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BIRBAL RAM – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3087 OF 2016
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RATAN LAL – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3088 OF 2016
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAM GOPAL – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3089 OF 2016
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BIRBAL MAHARIYA – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3091 OF 2016
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
TEJ SINGH alias SANWAT SINGH – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3090 OF 2016
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAM AVTAR KHATIK AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3093 OF 2016
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAM RATAN AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3094 OF 2016
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ARJUN – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3095 OF 2016
Decided On : 22-04-2019
(1979) 2 SCC 196 – Relied upon
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Life imprisonment – Life means whole of natural life. (Para 11)
(1961) 3 SCR 440; (1981) 1 SCC 107 – Relied upon
(c) Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 – Rule 8(2)(i) r/w section 433A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 433 fixing a minimum period of 14 years of incarceration for bring eligible for remission – Remission not a matter of right but subject to the Rules – Rule 8(2)(i) wrongly struck down by High Court. (Para 11)
(2016) 7 SCC 1 – Relied upon
(2005) 7 SCC 417 – Referred
Facts of the case:
Each of the respondents in the respective appeals was convicted under Section 302 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code in different Sessions trials arising from separate unconnected incidents and sentenced to imprisonment for life. They filed individual writ petitions contending that they had served more than 14 years in custody but their cases were not placed by the Jail Authorities before the State Advisory Boards for shortening of their sentences and premature release. The constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2006”) was challenged, putting a fetter on consideration of their cases till they earned a minimum of four years of remission after completing 14 years of actual imprisonment excluding remission, as being contrary to Section 433-A Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
High Court wrongly struck down Rule 8(2)(i).
Result: Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
A common question of law arises for consideration in this batch of appeals. The individual facts are therefore not relevant for adjudication. Suffice it to observe that each of the respondents in the respective appeals was convicted under Section 302 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code in different Sessions trials arising from separate unconnected incidents and sentenced to imprisonment for life. They filed individual writ petitions contending that they had served more than 14 years in custody but their cases were not placed by the Jail Authorities before the State Advisory Boards for shortening of their sentences and premature release. The constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2006”) was challenged, putting a fetter on consideration of their cases till they earned a minimum of four years of remission after completing 14 years of actual imprisonment excluding remission, as being contrary to Section 433-A Cr.P.C. No other issue was urged.
2. The Rules, 2006 were framed by the State Government in exercise of powers under Clause (2) & (5) of Section 59 (1) of the Prisons Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The High Court held that the Rules not having been placed before the Legislature of the State as required by Section 59(2) of the Act did not acquire statutory force. Furthermore, the Rules could not have been framed contrary to Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Maru Ram vs. Union of India, 1981 (1) SCC 107.
3. In view of the question of law involved, it will be proper to set out the statutory provisions arising for consideration.
“Section 59. Power to make rules.-
(1) The State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette make rules consistent with this Act-
xxx
(2) determining the classification of prison;
offences into serious and minor offences;
xxx
(5) for the award of marks and the shortening of sentences;
xxx
(2) Every Rule made under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before the State Legislature.”
“Rule 8(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (i)
(i) a prisoner who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for any offence for which death penalty is one of the punishment provided by law or who has been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under Section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, into one of imprisonment for life, shall be considered only after he has served 14 years of actual imprisonment excluding remission but including the period of detention spent during enquiry, investigation or trial, on the condition that such a prisoner shall also have to earn minimum of 4 years of remission in order to be eligible for consideration.”
“Section 433-A. Restriction on powers of remission and commutation in certain cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by laws, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.”
4. Learned Senior Counsel Dr. Manish Singhvi, for the appellants, submitted that the High Court erred in striking down the latter part of Rule 8(2)(i) requiring a minimum of four years remission after completion of 14 years in custody on both counts. Adverting to the striking down of the Rule for not laying it before the Legislature, it was submitted that the Rules did not contemplate laying before the Legislature prior to promulgation, as a pre-condition. The use of the words “as soon as” does not give any definite time period before which it is to be laid before the State Legislature. No cons
M/s. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. the State of Haryana
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.