Skip to content


State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ajit Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal Nos. 47 and 48 of 1972
Judge
Reported inAIR1976SC1855; 1976CriLJ1396; (1976)3SCC616; 1976(8)LC526(SC)
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 401 and 401(1); Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302
AppellantState of Madhya Pradesh;state of Punjab
RespondentAjit Singh and ors.;ajit Singh and ors.
Appellant Advocate O.P. Sharma,; M.S. Dhillon and; S.K. Mehta, Advs
Respondent Advocate Hardev Singh and ; R. S. Sodhi, Advs.
Cases ReferredBarelal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Prior historyFrom the Judgment and Order dated September 8, 1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Writ No. 10 of 1971
Excerpt:
.....into or received in british india in the relevant year and made the assessment on that basis. on appeal by the assessee the appellate assistant commissioner affirmed the assessment but the income-tax appellate tribunal holding that in the year of assessment the family was not resident in the taxable territories deleted the said sum from the assessed income. the decision of the appellate tribunal was upheld by the high court in a reference under s. 66(1) of the act made at the instance of the appellant: held (per s. k. das and j. l. kapur, jj.), that the expres- sion 'control and management' occurring in s. 4a(b) of the indian income-tax act means de facto control and management and the word " affairs " means the affairs of the hindu un- divided family capable of being controlled and..........pradesh (1) has absolutely no bearing on the question of the remission to be granted under section 401 of the crpc. it is therefore clear that the punjab government was fully justified in making a request to the madhya pradesh government which was the appropriate government for the purpose of exercising its discretion under section 401 of the crpc and as the government of madhya pradesh refused to exercise its discretion there was no error of law committed by the state government and the high court was, therefore, not justified in quashing the older of the madhya pradesh government and directing the punjab government to consider the case of the respondent for his release.3. we, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside the order of the high court. as the respondent has already.....
Judgment:

S. Murtaza Fazal, J.

1. These two appeals arc directly covered by cur decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh and Ors. for Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 1971 just pronounced. The respondent Ajit Singh was sentenced under Section 302 I.P.C. by the Session Judge. Bhind in the State of Madhya Pradesh by his order dated January 28, 1960. An appeal against his conviction was dismissed by the High Court and the respondent was lodged in the Central Jail at Gwalior. Sometime thereafter under Section 3 of the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950 the Government of Madhya Pradesh transferred prisoner Ajit Singh at his Instance to the Punjab Government where he was lodged in the District Jail at Gurdaspur. Some time in the year 1968 the prisoner having served for more than 20 years, the Punjab Government made a request to the State of Madhya Pradesh for release of the prisoner and remitting the remaining part of the sentence. The Madhya Pradesh Government however, declined to pass an order under Section 401(1) of the CrPC. Thereafter the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana praying for quashing the order of the Madhya Pradesh. The High Court allowing the writ petition quashed the order of the Madhya Pradesh Government and directed the Government of Punjab to consider the case of the respondent for his release. Against the order of the High Court, both the Madhya Pradesh Government and the Punjab Government have filed these appeals by special leave. These appeals have been heard together. Appeal No. 47 in the appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, whereas Appeal No. 48 has been preferred by the State of Punjab Bath these appeals arise out of the order of the High Court dated September 8, 1971.

2. We have already held in Criminal Appeal No 246 of 1971 that the appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 401 of the CrPC would be the Government of the State in which the prisoner had been convicted and sentenced by the Court of that State. We have also held that the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sita ram Barelal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1) has absolutely no bearing on the question of the remission to be granted under Section 401 of the CrPC. It is therefore clear that the Punjab Government was fully justified in making a request to the Madhya Pradesh Government which was the appropriate Government for the purpose of exercising its discretion under Section 401 of the CrPC and as the Government of Madhya Pradesh refused to exercise its discretion there was no error of law committed by the State Government and the High Court was, therefore, not justified in quashing the older of the Madhya Pradesh Government and directing the Punjab Government to consider the case of the respondent for his release.

3. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside the order of the High Court. As the respondent has already been released and at the time of granting the special leave we had directed that the release of the respondent would not be disturbed in any event, while quashing the order of the High Court we would not disturb the order of release of the respondent passed by the Punjab Government as a result of the order of the High Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //