http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHARANJIT KAUR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (7) 492        JT 1996 (3)    30  1996 SCALE  (2)380

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  special leave arises from the order of the High Court  of Punjab and Haryana made on January 6, 1995 in C.N. No.6872/95.  The admitted facts are that the respondent was convicted  for an  offence of  murder and  sentenced  to undergo imprisonment for life. Admittedly, she was convicted on June  2, 1984  for an  offence committed on September 24, 1983. She  has been  in custody  from September 19, 1983. An application has  been  filed  in  the  High  Court  for  her premature release. In the impugned order, the High Court has directed the  release of  the respondent  on the ground that the State  had not  filed the counter-affidavit, in spite of that fact  that the  case was  adjourned on  more than three occasions. The  question is:  whether  the  High  Court  has jurisdiction under  Article 226  or under Section 482 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the "Code") to release the prisoner.      Section 433  of the Code empowers the Government, in an appropriate  case,   without  the   consent  of  the  person sentenced,  to  commute  the  sentence  and  to  prematurely release the  convict. Clause  (b)  thereof  provides  for  a sentence of  imprisonment for  life, for  imprisonment for a term not  exceeding 14  years or fine. Indisputably, she did not even  complete 14  years which  is a  minimum  mandatory sentence required  to be  served under the Code. At best the Court, in an appropriate case, where the prisoner has served the  mandatory   minimum  sentence,   may  only  direct  the appropriate Government  to consider  the commutation  of the sentence and  prematurely release  a particular convict. The can do  no  further.  The  Government  would  consider  such direction based  upon the  conduct of the prisoner and other relevant circumstances and act upon it. Thus considered,  we are of the view that the High Court had committed grave  error of  law in  directing release  of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

convict on  the lapse  on the part of the appellant-State in filing the counter-affidavit.      The appeal is accordingly allowed.