LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

UNION OF INDIA versus V. SRIHARAN @ MURUGAN & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 14 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 02-12-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 30 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 14 S.C.R. 613 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
V. SRI HARAN@ MURUGAN & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 48 of 2014) 
DECEMBER 02, 2015 
[H. L. DATTU, CJI, 
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND 
UDAY UMESH LAUT, JJ.) 
A 
B 
c 
Penal Code, 1860 -
s. 53 r/w s.45 -
Whether 
imprisonment for life in terms of s.53 r/w s.45 of /PC meant 
imprisonment for rest of the life of the prisoner or a convict 
undergoing life imprisonment has a right to claim remission 
D 
and whether as per the principles enunciated in paras 91 to 
93 of Swamy Shraddananda (2) case, a special category of 
sentence may be made for the very few cases where the death 
penalty might be substituted by the punishment of 
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term in excess of E 
fourteen years and to put that category beyond application 
of remission - Held (per majority): Imprisonment for life in 
terms of s.53 r/w s.45 of /PC only means imprisonment for 
rest of life of the convict - The right to claim remission, 
commutation, reprieve etc. as provided under Art. 72 or F 
Art. 161 of the Constitution will always be available being 
Constitutional Remedies untouchable by the Court - The 
ratio laid down in Swamy Shraddananda case that a special 
category of sentence; instead of death can be substituted by 
the punishment of imprisonment for life or for a term G 
exceeding 14 years and put that category beyond application 
of remission is well-founded - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Arts. 72 and 161 - Sentence I Sentencing- Remission. 
613 
H 
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-ss.432 and 433-
Whether the "Appropriate Government" is permitted to 
exercise the power of remission u/ss.4321433 CrPC after 
parallel power has been exercised by the President under 
Art. 72 or the Governor under Art.161 or by this Court in its 
B Constitutional power under Art.32- Held (per majority): The 
exercise of power u/ss.432 and 433 of CrPC will be available 
to the Appropriate Government even if such consideration 
was made earlier and exercised u!Art. 72 by the President or 
u/Art. 161 by the Governor-As far as the application of Art.32 
c of the Constitution by Supreme Court is concerned, the 
powers u/ss.432 and 433 are to be exercised by the 
Appropriate Government statutorily and it is not for the 
. Supreme Court to exercise the said power and it is always 
left to be decided by the Appropriate Government -
o Sentence I Sentencing - Remission. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.432(7) & (6) -
Whether s.432(7) CrPC clearly gives primacy to the 
Executive Power of the Union and excludes the Executive 
Power of the State where the power of the Union is coextensive 
E -
Whether the Union or the State has primacy over the 
subject-matter enlisted in List Ill of the Seventh Schedule to 
the Constitution of India for exercise of power of remission -
Whether there can be two Appropriate Governments in a given 
case u/s.432(7) CrPC - Held (per majority): The status of 
F Appropriate Government whether Union Government or the 
State Government will depend upon the order of sentence 
passed by the Criminal Court as has been stipulated in 
s.432(6) and in the event of specific Executive Power 
conferred on the Centre under a law made by the Parliament 
G or under the Constitution itself then in the event of the 
conviction and sentence covered by the said law of the 
Parliament or the provisions of the Constitution even if the 
Legislature of the State is also empowered to make a law on 
the same subject and coextensive, the Appropriate 
H 
UNION OF INDIA v. V. SRI HARAN @ MURUGAN 
615 
Government will be the Union Government having regard to 
A 
the prescription contained in the proviso to Art. 73(1)(a) of the 
Constitution - The principle stated in the decision in G. V. 
Ramanaiah case should be applied- Cases which fall within 
the four corners of s.432(7)(a) by virtue of specific Executive 
Power conferred on the Centre, the same will clothe the Union 
B 
Government the primacy with the status of Appropriate 
Government- Barring cases falling u/s.432(7)(a), in all other 
cases where the offender is sentenced or the sentence order 
is passedยท within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned 
State, the State Government would be the Appropriate C 
Government- Constitution of India - Seventh Schedule, List 
II/ -Sentence I Sentencing - Remission. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19

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