STATE OF PUNJAB versus BABU SINGH

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 16-04-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA, J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
,. 
..,. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
A 
v. 
BABU SINGH 
APRIL 16, 1991 
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 433A-Life convict 
-Premature release of-Whether permissible-Mercy Petition pending 
-High Court releasing convict on bail-Validity of order. 
On the application for pre-mature release, made by the respon-
dent, who was undergoing sentence of life imprisonment and had served 
a period of eleven and a haH years the High Court directed that the 
respondent's mercy petition pending before the Governor, should be 
decided within three months. Since this was not done, the High Court 
directed his release on bail, observing that if his mercy petition was 
dismissed he would have to surrender. Against this decision the State 
filed an appeal before this Conrt. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: The High Court has not taken into consideration the pro-
visions of Section 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 while 
passing the order for the respondent's release on bail. The judicial 
proceeding dealing with the conviction and sentence of the accused had 
been earlier concluded, and the order was passed while finally disposing 
of the writ petition alleging delay in disposal of the mercy petition. Thus, 
no case is now pending before the court. The order for the respondent's 
release on bail has not' thdefore, been passed as an interim measure 
pending the decision of a case before the Court. In such a situation 
the provisions of Section 433A are attracted. The words "such per-
son shall not be released from prison" are wide in their application 
and cannot be restricted only to cases where the person has been 
released finally. 
The judgment in question is set aside and the case remitted to the 
High Court for reconsideration of the writ petition confined to its 
limited scope. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 294 of 1991. 
421 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
422 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.4.1990 of the Punjab & 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Haryana High Court in Cr!. Misc. No. 3635 of 1989. 
R.S. Suri for the Appellant. 
Brijender Chahar and Ashok Mathur for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The delay in 
filing the special leave petition is condoned and leave is granted. 
2. The respondent who was undergoing sentence of life impri-
sonment, had served a period of eleven and a half years when he made 
an application for pre-mature release; The Punjab and Haryana High 
Court by the impugned order issued a direction to release the respon-
dent on bail, observing further that if his mercy petition, which was 
pending, is dismissed, he will have to surrender. 
3. The High Court has not taken into consideration the provi-
sions of Section 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code while passing 
the order. A week back we have allowed a criminal appeal against a 
judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in another case direct-
ing pre-mature release on account of good conduct of the respondent in 
jail serving a life sentence although he had actually been in jail for a 
period of nine years only. We set aside the order as the provisions 
under Section 433A had not been taken into consideration, and remit-
ted the matter to the High Court for reconsideration in accordance 
with the provisions of Jail Manual. The learned counsel for the respon-
dent in the present appeal attempted to distinguish the case on the 
ground that here the respondent has been only enlarged on bail and 
has not been finally released. We do not think that Section 433A, 
which is quoted below, is inapplicable in the present case: 
"Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in 
certain cases-Notwithstanding anything contained in Sec-
tion 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is 
imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which 
death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where 
a sentence of death imposed on a person has been com-
muted under Section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, 
such person shall not be released from prison unless he had 
·"" 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BABU SINGH 
423 
served at least fourteen years of imprisonment." 
(emphasis supplied) 
The respondent in his writ petition before the High Court relied -upon 
three instructions (Annexures P-1 to P-3) in support of his claim that 
he is entitled to pre-mature relea

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