PYARE LAL versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 249 · Decided: 17-07-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, VINEET SARAN · Disposal: Directions issued
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
249
PYARE LAL
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1003 of 2017)
JULY 17, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India:
Art. 161 – Remission of sentence under – On the basis of
policy framed by the executive – Relevant material not placed before
the Governor and benefit in each of the cases was conferred by the
executive itself in terms of the policy – Propriety of the remission –
Held: The decisions of the Supreme Court by larger Benches show
that relevant material must be placed before the Governor in order
to enable him to exercise the power u/Art. 161 and failure on that
count could result in quashing of the order of remission – The
Constitution Bench in Maru Ram Case had observed that Government
should make Rules for its own guidance in the exercise of the pardon
powers – In view of the observation in Maru Ram case, the norms
laid down by the policy were correct – Therefore, the matter is
required to be referred to larger Bench – To determine the question
whether in exercise of power conferred under Article 161, a policy
can be framed, whereunder certain norms or postulates are laid
down, on the satisfaction of which the benefit of remission can
thereafter be granted by the Executive without placing the facts or
material with respect to any of the cases before the Governor and
whether such exercise can override the requirements under Section
433-A of Cr. P.C. – Sentence/ Sentencing – Remission of Sentence –
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 433-A.
Maru Ram v. Union of India and Others (1981) 1 SCC
107 : [1981] 1 SCR 1196; Swaran Singh v. State of
U.P. and Others (1998) 4 SCC 75 : [1998] 2 SCR 206;
Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. (2006) 8 SCC 161 :
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 81; Satpal v. State of Haryana
(2000) 5 SCC 170 : [2000] 3 SCR 858; State of
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 249
249
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
250
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
Haryana and Others v. Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216 :
[2010] 3 SCR 716; Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State
(NCT of Delhi) (2013) 6 SCC 195 : [2013] 6 SCR 676
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1981] 1 SCR 1196
referred to
Para 4
[1998] 2 SCR 206
referred to
Para 5
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 81
referred to
Para 6
[2000] 3 SCR 858
referred to
Para 6.1
[2010] 3 SCR 716
referred to
Para 7
[2013] 6 SCR 676
referred to
Para 8
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1003 of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2013 of the High Court
of  Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 170-DB
of 2007.
Shikhil Suri, Shiv Kumar Suri, Advs. for the Appellant.
Amit Kumar, AAG, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was passed by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. The Appellant (original Accused No.1) stands convicted under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
to suffer life imprisonment and to other punishments including fine and
default sentence under certain other offences.  While granting Special
Leave to Appeal, this Court by its Order dated 04.07.2017 rejected the
prayer for bail.Another application for bail was thereafter preferred and
when the application came up for consideration, it was reported that
after having completed 8 years of actual sentence and the Appellant
being aged above 75 years, in accordance with the existing policy of the
State Government, he was prematurely released in 2019. This Court,
therefore, called upon the State to file an affidavit indicating whether the
policy permitted premature release even before completion of actual
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
251
sentence of 14 years in connection with an offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC.
2. The response filed on behalf of the State Government indicates
that on the occasion of the Independence Day i.e., 15th August, 2019, in
exercise of powers conferred by Article 161 of the Constitution of India,
the Governor of Haryana was pleased to grant special remission to certain
categories of prisoners. The policy decision dated 02.08.2019 issued in
that behalf was as under:-
“ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR OF HARYANA
On the occasion of Independence Day i.e. 15th August 2019,the
Governor of Haryana in exercise of the powers conferred by
Article 161 of the Constitution of India, is pleased to grant special
remission to prisoners who are undergoing sentence as a result of
their conviction by the Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction in the State
of Haryana. The special remission granted will be as under:
Category of Conv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.