SANABOINA SATYANARAYANA versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 874 · Decided: 29-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SANABOINA SA TY ANARA YANA 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
JULY 29, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 14 and 161--Government Order-Remission of sentence to life 
C convict-Benefit not granted to certain categories-One being prisoner 
convicted for crime against women such as Sections 376 and 354-Conviction 
under Sections 302, 498A and 201-Convic:t pleading that only Sections 376 
and 354 covered and not Section 498A thus entitled to the benefit of the 
Order-Justification of-Held: After the provisions of the Penal Code words 
D 'suoh as' is by way of illustration of excepted category of offences relating 
,. 
to crime against women in general and not exhaustive, thus plea not justified 
and rightly rejected by High Court-Further, such classification to keep 
away convicts for crime against women from the benefits of remission just, 
reasonable and proper, necessitated in the larger interest of the society, thus 
not violative of Article 14-Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376, 354, 498A, 302 
E and 201. 
Article 161--Government Order-Remission of sentence to life convicts 
subject to the conditions stipulated-Enlargement of Order-Scope of-Held: 
In such class of convicts or category of order enlargement beyond what was 
specifically intended in the order not justified since order is framed in the 
F interest of the society. 
Appellant was convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under 
Section~ 302, 498-A and 201 IPC. Convict was taken into custody and is 
undergoing imprisonment. Respondent-State passed a Government Order in 
G exercise of powers conferred under Article 161 of the Constitution and 
remitted the on-expired residue of sentence of the various categories of life 
convicts in the State. One of the categories to which benefit was not extended 
was prisoners convicted for crimes against women such as Sections 376 and 
354 IPC. Appellant-convict filed a writ petition seeking benefit of the 
Government order as his conviction was not for a crime against women under 
I-I 
874 
SANABOINA SATYANARA YANA t'. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
875 
Sections 376 and 354 IPC; and that this discrimination against convicts for A 
crimes against women is violative of Article 14, therefore, the Government 
order has to be read de-hors the said restriction so as to extend the benefit of 
the remission granted. High Court dismissed the writ petition rejecting the 
plea. Hence the present appeal. 
During the hearing of the appeal, a subsequent Government Order was B 
produced which was under Section 433 Cr.P.C. and Section 55 IPC stating 
that several provisions of IPC other than those in tht ear!ier order relating 
to crimes against women including conviction under the Dowry Prohibition 
Act have been specified to be the class of the convicts who c.annot avail benefit 
of remission. 
Appellant contended that the subsequent Government Order would not 
stand in the way of the benefits accrued to the appellant in terms of the earlier 
order; that a further classification among the entire class of convicts forming 
c 
a larger group, based on crime against women and those falling under the 
other category should not be made; and that the stipulation contained in para D 
3-(iv) of the earlier Government Order does not deny or disentitle a convict 
under Section 498-A to the benefits of remission. 
Respondent-State contended that the exception carved out for denying 
the benefit of remission in respect of convicts of crime against women is valid, 
well merited and justifiable in public interest; that the remission itself is a E 
benefit and concession sought to be granted to a few class of persons and 
being a matter of policy, the State cannot be compelled to accord remission to 
all category of convicts, even against the evolved policy of the State; and that 
there is no discrimination in such classification. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: I. Clause (iv) of paragraph 3 of the Government order dated 
25.1.2000 specifically stated that prisoners convicted for "crimes against 
women such as Section 376 and 354 /PC while being sentenced to 
imprisonment for life", will fall outside the scheme for remission granted G 
under the Government order. In the later portion reference of two of the 
provisions of the IPC, after the words "such as" was more by way of illustration 
of the excepted category of offences relating to crimes against women in 
general and not

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.