STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS versus MUKESH SHARMA

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 194 · Decided: 22-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · 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
194
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS
v.
MUKESH SHARMA
(Civil Appeal No. 3086 of 2016 etc.)
APRIL 22, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing:
Remission of sentence – Writ petition challenging
constitutional validity of r. 8(2)(i) of Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening
of Sentences) Rules, 2006 (framed u/s. 59(1) (2) and (5) Prisons
Act, 1894) – By appellants/convicts undergoing life sentence – High
Court allowed the petition holding that the Rules not having been
placed before the State legislature as required by s. 59(2) of Prisons
Act, did not acquire statutory force and that the Rules were contrary
to s. 433A of Cr.P.C. – On appeal, held: It is not mandatory to place
the Rules before the legislature prior to its promulgation – Under
Penal Code imprisonment for life means convict’s natural life and
under Rajasthan Prison Rules, 1951 it means imprisonment for 20
years –  Section 433A Cr.P.C. fixes the minimum period i.e. 14 years
of imprisonment before which remission cannot be considered –
Remission is not a matter of right – As a matter of policy nothing
prevents the State from imposing restrictions in the manner done by
r. 8(2)(i) to consider claims of remission – Rajasthan Prisons
(Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 2006 –  r. 8(2)(i) and 2(e) –  Prisons
Act, 1894  –  ss. 59(1) and (2)  –  Rajasthan Prison Rules, 1951 –  r.
1(e)  –  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  –  ss. 432, 433(b) and
433A – Penal Code, 1860.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The plain language of Section 59(2) of Prisons
Act, 1894 makes it manifest that there is no requirement for laying
of the Rules before the legislature prior to promulgation of the
Act. No time limit for laying has been provided. The use of words
“as soon as” coupled with the absence of any consequence for
not laying makes the provision directory and not mandatory.
[Para 7][199-D-E]
   [2019] 6 S.C.R. 194
194
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
195
M/s. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. & ors. v. the State of
Haryana (1979) 2 SCC 196 : [1979] 1 SCR 1070
– relied on.
2. Rajasthan Prison Rules, 1951, under the heading
Remission System, in Rule 1(e) provides that the sentence for
imprisonment for life or transportation of life shall be deemed to
mean imprisonment for 20 years. Sentence for imprisonment for
life or transportation of life under the Penal Code shall mean the
convict’s natural life. Rule 2(e) of the Rajasthan Prisons
(Shortcoming of Sentences) Rules 2006, defines shortening of
sentence to mean the reduction of that period of sentence of a
prisoner which he has to serve in the prison upon a judicially
pronounced sentence as a matter of grace on the part of the State
and as a recognition of his good behaviour in the prison.
[Paras 8, 9 and 10][201-D-F]
Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra (1961)
3 SCR 440  –  relied on.
3. Section 432 Cr.P.C. provides for the power to suspend
or remit sentences and also to refuse the same. Section 433(b)
Cr.P.C. provides for commuting a sentence of imprisonment for
life to 14 years. Section 433-A Cr.P.C. provides that remission or
commutation shall not enable release of the convict from prison
unless the person had served at least 14 years of imprisonment.
It, therefore, fixes a minimum period before which remission
could not be considered. Any rule that may provide to consider
remission before 14 years would obviously be bad in view of the
statutory provision contained in the Code. [Para 11][200-G-H;
201-A-B]
Union of India vs. V. Sriharan (2016) 7 SCC 1 : [2015]
14 SCR 613 – relied on.
4. Manifestly remission not being a matter of right, much
less upon completion of 14 years of custody, but subject to rules
framed in that regard, including complete denial of the same in
specified circumstances, as a matter of State policy, nothing
prevents the State from imposing restrictions in the manner done
by Rule 8(2)(i) of Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentence)
Rules, 2006 to consider claims for remission.[Para 12][201-F-G]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS v. MUKESH SHARMA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
Maru Ram v. Union of India 1981 (1) SCC 107
–  relied on.
Mohd. Munna v. Union of India & ors. (2005) 7 SCC
417 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 233 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1981) 1 SCC 107
relied on
Para 2
[1979] 1 SCR 1070
relied on
Para 4
[2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 233
referred to
Para 5
[1961] 3 SCR 440
relied on
Para 10
[2015] 14 SCR 613
relied on
Para 11
CIVIL APP
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.