LexG.V.RAMANAIAH versus THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL JAIL, RAJAHMUNDRY AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
852 G.V.RAMANAIAH t. THE SUPERI1'TENDENT OF CEN1RAL JAIL, RAJAHMUNDRY AND OTHERS October 10, 1973 [H. R. KHANNA' AND R. S. SAJUCARIA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 19SO-Art. 161-V/l Schedule-Entry I List ll/, Entry 93, List I and Entry 64, List //-Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 8 of 1898) s. 402-Whether State Government can remit sentence in respect of oOences under ss. 489A 10 489D; /.P.C. The petitiorier, along with others, was convicted and sentenced of offcnce3 under ss. 489-A to 489~u. I.P.C. relating to currency notes and bank notes. On the occasion of Gandhi Centenary the State Government granted special remii- sion of sentences to various categories of prisoners who were convicted of offences against laws relating to matters to which the executive power of the State extended. The jail authorities released some of the other accused but the petitioner was not released, because, accordit:ig to the respondent State. the State Government had no power to remit the sentence in respect oi otfences relating to a matter which was within the sphere of the executive power of the Union and not of the State and that the release of the other accused was a mistake. Dismissing the writ petition under Art. 32, HEW: (l) Under s. 402 (3), Cr. P.C. the appropriate Government is the Central Government in respect of case., wh-~re the sentence is for an o rencc ~gainst any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union. extends. Under Art. 161, the Governor's power to give pardon etc .. is with respect t') an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the execu· five power of the State extends. Currency, coinage and legal tender, are matten which are expressly included in Entry 36, List I, Schedule VII. Entry 93 speci· fically confers on the ParJiament the power to legislate with regard to ' 10Jfencew against laws with respect to any of the matters in the Union List". Read together, these entries put it beyond doubt that currency notes and bank notel are matters which are exclusively within th! legislative comoetence of the Union Legislature. The offences for which the petitioner had been convicted were offences relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends and the appropriate Government competent to remit the sentenee would be the Central Government and not the State Government. (SSS B-DJ (2) Entry no. 1 of List III would show that the ambit of criminal law wa<i first enlarged by including in it the Penal Code and thereafter excluding all offen· ces agaimt laws with respect to any of the matters specified in List I or List ll. The reason for such inclusion and exclusion seems to be that offences against laws with respect to any of the matters specified in List I or List II are given a place in Entry 93, List I and Entry 64, List II. The Penal Code is a compil'1.- tion of penal laws, providing to the various entries in the different lists of VII Schedule. Many of the offences in the Code relate to matters which are speci- fically covered by the entries in the Union List. This excluding clause in Entry no. l of List lII read with Entries 36 and 93 of List I shows beyond all doubt that in respect of offences falling under ss. 489A to 4890 only the Central Govefnment is competent to suspend or remit the sentence of a convict. [856 B-CJ (3) The Government Order in question could not fall under the head "Cri· n1inal Law". It was an act done in the ext>rcise of his executive functions by the Governor under Art. 161 of the Constitution. (857 q .I B c D E E G ( 4) The wrong release of .the other accu1ied did not give a right to the I-I petitioner to claim the benefit of the G. 0. [857 ,DJ Re N. V. Nataraian A.I.R. 1965 Mad. II and R. L Aurora Ram Ditta Mal v. State of U.P. & Ors. A.I.R. 19S8 All. 126 distinguished. A ll c D E F G H G. ¥. RAMANAIAH v. SUPDT.•.CENTRAL JAIL (Sarkaria, /.) 853 ORIGINAL JUIUSD!CTION : Writ Petition No. 1435 of 1973. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ in the nature of habeas corpus. ·.. ' . P. K. Rao and K •. R. Nagara;a, for the petitioner. P. Ram Reddy, J:>., P. Rao, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by- SARKARIA, J .-The principal question· of law that falls to be determined in this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Consti- tution of India by the petitioner is : which is tne appropriate Govern- ment-Ce
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.