STATE OF HARYANA versus BHUP SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1306 · Decided: 18-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[200.8] 17 S.C.R. 1306 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
BHUP SINGH & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2064-66 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 18, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 161 - Remission of 
sentence of life convict - Relevant date for consideration of 
c - Held: The relevant date for consideration would be the date 
of judgment of conviction and sentence, and not the date on 
which the convict is to be considered for remission -
Sentencing. 
Precedent - What constitutes binding precedent - Held: 
0 A decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can 
logically be deduced therefrom - Constitution of India, · 1950 
- Article 141. 
Respondents were convicted for commission of 
offence uls.302 IPC for murder of three persons and were 
E sentenced to undergo RI for life. State Government took 
a policy decision for premature release of life convicts by 
putting them in various categories. The case of the 
respondents were not considered for premature release 
on the premise that the offence committed by them fell 
F in the cate.gory of heinous crimes and could be 
considered only after completion of 20 years' 
imprisonment including remissions. 
G 
H 
The validity of the policy decision was challenged. 
High Court held that the respondents were entitled to be 
considered for premature release on the expiry of 10 
years of actual sentence and 14 years of sentence 
including remissions. In appeal, Supreme Court directed 
the State to consider the cases of the respondents for 
pre-mature release. 
1306 
I __. • 
' 
'. 
STATE OF HARYANA v. BHUP SINGH & ORS. 
1307 
State declined the release of the respondents A 
observing that they had not completed requisite period 
/ 
of sentence undergone, to qualify for premature release 
under the existing policy. In the writ petition against the 
order, High Court directed the State to release the 
respondents forthwith, as they had completed actual B 
sentence of 14 years. Hence the present appeals. 
State contended that High Court could have only 
directed the State to consider the cases of the 
/ • 
respondents treating the date on which they were 
required to be put up before the State under Article 161 c 
of the Constitution, as the relevant date with reference to 
which their cases were required to be considered was as 
opined in the judgment in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. 
Ba/wan & Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 355. This Court issued limited 
notice as to consider the case of the respondents for D 
remission. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The right to ask for remission of sentence 
by a life convict would be under the law as was prevailing 
on the date on which the judgment of conviction and E 
sentence was passed. If the executive instructions 
cannot be given a retrospective effect being not in 
consonance with the Prisoner's Rules framed under the 
Prison Act, the decision in Ba/wan Singh's case also 
cannot constitute a binding precedent. A decision is an 
F 
authority for what it decides and not what can logically 
... " 
be deduced therefrom. The directions contained in 
Balwan Singh's case cannot be held to be declaration of 
law within the meaning Article 141 of the Constitution of 
India. This Court therein did not have any occasion to 
consider the legality and/or validity of the policy decision G 
of the State vis-a-vis the Prison Rules. [Paras 9 and 1 O] 
[1311-F-A;-E-F] 
1.2. The appellant is directed to consider the cases 
of the respondents. If the respondents have not already 
been released, the State shall consider their cases in H 
1308 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. [2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A terms of the judgment of this Court in Mahender Singh's 
case having regard to the policy decision as was 
applicable on the date on which they were convicted and 
\ 
not on the basis of the subsequent policy decision of the 
year 2002. [Para 11] [1312-8-C] 
B 
State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh and Ors. (2007) 12 
SCALE 669, relied on. 
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ba/wan and Ors. (1999) 7 
sec 355, distinguished. 
! 
'-
Case Law Reference: 
c 
(1999) 1 sec 355 
distinguished 
Para 7 
(2007) 12 SCALE 669 
relied on 
Para 8 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 2064-2066 of 2008. 
D 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.7.2007 of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal 
Writ Petition Nos. 284 of 285 of 2007. 
Rajeev.: Gaur 'Naseem'.· and Naresh Bakshi for the 
Appellant. 
E 
Sanjay
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.