THAIVALAPPIL KUNJUVARU VAREED versus THE STATE OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN.

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1022 · Decided: 01-12-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

Dec1mh1r 1. 
1022 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
THAIVALAPPIL KUNJUVARU VAREED 
fl. 
THE STATE OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN. 
l S. R. DAs, AcTING C. J., VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI, 
JAGANNADHADAS and B. P. SINHA JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Arts. 72, 161 and 238-Prerogative right 
of pardon vested in the Mahara7a of Cochin and affirmed by Art. XX! 
of Covenant dated 29th May 1949 entered into between the Rulers of 
Travancore and Cochin~Whet!1er superseded and abrogated in view 
of thr: 
acccJ·sion 
and integration of United State of Travancore· 
Cochin with Dominion of India and the Union of India-Whether 
itJ r:ontinuence consistent U'ith ~4rts. 62, 161 and 238 of the Constitu-
tioa. 
A sentence of death passed on the appellant by the Sessions 
Judge of Trichur 
(now siturrted in the United State of Travancore-
Cochin and previously in the former State of Cochin) was confirmed 
by the High Court. Mercy petitions presented to the Raj Pramukh 
of Travancore-Cochin and to the President of 
India were rejected. 
The 
question for 
determination was 
v;hether the appellant could 
rely on the pre-existing power of the Maharaja of Cochin to exercise 
the po,ver of pardon in respect of a sentence of death passed by the 
courts in his 
State, 
the prerogative right having been affirmed by 
Art. XX! of the Covenant dated the 29th May 
1949, entered into 
between the Rulers of T ra vancore and Cochin. 
Held that the 
pre-existing 
prerogative right of pardon vested 
in the Maharaja of Cochin must be taken to have been superseded 
and abrogated having regard to the event.s which culminated in the 
accession and integration of the State of Travancore+Cochin with 
the Dominion of India and thereafter its absorption into the Union 
of India when the Constitution of India came into force on the 26th 
January 1950, the continuance of such prerogative being inconsistent 
\Vith Arts. 72, 161 and 238 of the Constitution. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 90 of 1955. 
On appeal by special leave from the Judgment 
and order dated the 17th June 1955 of the Travan-
core-Cochin High Court at Ernakulam in Criminal 
Miscellaneous Petition 
No. 113 
of 1955 (R.T. No. 4 
of 1954 and Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 1954). 
B. R. L. Iyengar, for the appellant. 
Sardar Bahadur, for the respondent. 
2S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1023 
1955. December 1. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
JAGANNADHADAS J.-This is 
an appeal 
by special 
leave 
and 
arises 
under somewhat 
unusual 
circum-
stances. The appellant was convicted of murder in 
Sessions Case No. lO of 1954 by the Sessions Judge of 
Trichur now in the 
State of Travancore-Cochin and 
sentenced to death. The sentence was in due course 
confirmed by the High Court and an application for 
leave to appeal against it to this 
Court was rejected. 
The appellant filed 
mercy 
petitions 
to 
the Raj-
Pramukh of Travancore-Cochin and to the President 
of India and both of them were rejected. 
After all 
these attempts had failed, the Sessions Judge issued 
a warrant on the 29th March, 1955, fixing 6th April, 
1955, 
for the 
execution of the 
prisoner. 
Meanwhile, 
the 
Superintendent, Central 
Jail, 
Viyyur, 
where the 
condemned prisoner was lodged, informed the Sessions' 
Judge by his letter dated the 1st April, 1955, that the 
prisoner had sent a mercy petition to the Maharaja 
of Cochin and requested for directions, since no orders 
had 
been 
received 
in 
respect of 
that petition. 
It 
may 
be 
mentioned 
that 
the 
Sessions 
Division 
of 
Trichur is admittedly in the former State of Cochin. 
It does not appear from the record whether this mercy 
petition to the Maharaja of Cochin was sent before 
or after the mercy petitions to the Raj-Pramukh of 
Travancore-Cochin and to the President were disposed 
of. On receipt of the letter dated the 1st April, 1955, 
from the 
Superintendent, 
Central 
Jail, 
the 
Sessions 
Judge passed an order that the circumstances of the 
case demanded that the execution of the sentence 
should not take place on the date already fixed. 
He 
accordingly issued an order staying execution of the 
sentence, 
previously 
ordered 
by 
his 
warrant dated 
the 29th March, 1955. 
At this stage, the Public Pro-
secutor filed an application to 
the Sessions Judge on 
the 30th May, 1955, praying that the stay may be 
vacated 
and 
that fresh 
directions 
to execute 
the 
warrant may be issued. 
On that application, 
the 
Public Prosecutor raised the quest

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