Judges : S.R.DAS,BOSE,BHAGAVATHY,JAGANNADHADAS,SINHA
Kunjuvaru Vareed - Appellant
Versus
State of Travancore-Cochin - Respondent
Case No : Crl. A. No. 90 of 1955
Decided On : 12/01/1955
Advocates Appeared :
B. R. L. Iyengar; For Appellant Sardar Bahadur; For Respondent
Prerogative of Pardon - Jurisdictional Conflict - Art. XXI of the Covenant - Art.72, 161, 238 of the Constitution - S.401, 402, 402A of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Abrogation of Prerogative
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. After failed mercy petitions, the execution was stayed due to a mercy petition to the Maharaja of Cochin. The Public Prosecutor argued that the Maharaja's prerogative of pardon was incompetent and could not stand in the way of the warrant being executed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Maharaja's prerogative of pardon no longer survived after the accession and integration of the State of Travancore-Cochin with the Dominion of India and the coming into force of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Maharaja's prerogative of pardon in respect of the ex-State of Cochin still existed despite the events leading to the accession and integration of the State of Travancore-Cochin with the Dominion of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Maharaja's prerogative of pardon was inconsistent with the new Constitution and had been superseded and abrogated. The Code of Criminal Procedure had also been made applicable to all Part B States, deeming the prerogative under the old Cochin Law to have been repealed or abrogated by competent legislative authority.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
1. This is an appeal by special leave and arises under somewhat unusual circumstances. The appellant was convicted of murder in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1954 by the Sessions Judge of Trichur now in the State of Travancore-Cochin and sentenced to death. The sentence was in due course confirmed by the High Court and an application for leave to appeal against it to this Court was rejected. The appellant filed mercy petitions to the Raj Pramukh of Travancore-Cochin and to the President of India and both of them were rejected. After all these attempts had failed, the Sessions Judge issued a warrant on the 29th March, 1955, fixing 6th April, 1955 for the execution of the prisoner. Meanwhile, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Viyyur, where the condemned prisoner was lodged, informed the Sessions Judge by his letter dated the 1st April, 1955, that the prisoner had sent a mercy petition to the Maharaja of Cochin and requested for directions, since no orders had been received in respect of that petition. It may be mentioned that the Sessions Division of Trichur is admittedly in the former State of Cochin. It does not appear from the record whether this mercy petition to the Maharaja of Cochin was sent before or after the mercy petitions to the Raj Pramukh of Travancore-Cochin and to the President were disposed of. On receipt of the letter dated the 1st April, 1955, from the Superintendent, Central Jail, the Sessions Judge passed an order that the circumstances of the case demanded that the execution of the sentence should not take place on the date already fixed. He accordingly issued an order staying execution of the sentence, previously ordered by his warrant dated the 29th March, 1955. At this stage, the Public Prosecutor filed an application to the Sessions Judge on the 30th May, 1955, praying that the stay may be vacated and that fresh directions to execute the warrant may be issued. On that application, the Public Prosecutor raised the question that a mercy petition to the Maharaja of Cochin, who as such, has lost sovereignty over the territory forming part of the previous Cochin State, and hence also lost his prerogative of pardon, was incompetent and could not stand in the way of the warrant being executed. The learned Sessions Judge dealt with this question and agreed with the contention of the Public Prosecutor. Accordingly, he vacated the stay and issued a fresh warrant for execution of the prisoner giving a week's time to the prisoner to take the matter on appeal to the High Court, if so advised. The prisoner filed an appeal to the High Court and the learned judges of the High Court after consideration of the arguments on both sides agreed with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge, and dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated the 17th June, 1955. The present appeal is against this order of the High Court.
2. For the hearing of this appeal counsel was assigned to the appellant'amicus curiae' and all the relevant constitutional provisions have been fully and fairly placed before us. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also been heard. We are satisfied that the question that has been raised does not admit of substantial argument and that the view taken by both the Courts below is correct.
3. The entire basis for any argument on behalf of the appellant is the pre-existing undoubted power of the Maharaja of Cochin to exercise the prerogative of pardon in respect of a sentence of death passed by the courts within his State. That prerogative right has been affirmed in Art. XXI of the Covenant dated the 29th May, 1949, entered into between the Rulers of Travancore and Cochin for the formation of the United State of Travancore and Cochin. The Article is in the following terms:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions of this Covenant, the Rulers of Travancore and Cochin shall continue to have, and exercise, their present powers of suspension, remission or commutation of death sentence
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.