Supreme Court of India
SAMJUBEN GORDHANBHAI KOLI versus STATE OF GUJARAT
- Decided
- 7 October 2010
- Judges listed
- MARKANDEY KATJU, T.S. THAKUR
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [2010] 12 S.C.R. 247 · 2010 INSC 683
- Also cited as
- (2010) 13 SCC 466
- MANU/SC/0826/2010
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
p. 248, margin B
This Appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the
p. 248, margin B
impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat dated 17.12.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 812of1995.
p. 248, margin B
The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and order and hence we are not repeating the same here.
p. 248, margin C
Having carefully perused the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, we are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the same. The High Court has dealt with the matter in great detail and upheld the conviction of the appellant. We see no reason to disagree with the impugned judgment and order.
p. 248, margin C
The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
p. 248, margin C
By order dated 09.05.2005 this Court has granted bail to the appellant. The bail bonds are cancelled. The appellant shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining portion of sentence.
p. 248, margin E
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant should be ·granted remission of the rest of her sentence. In our opinion, remission can only be granted by the executive authorities.
p. 248, margin F
However, the appellant will be free to seek appropriate redress from the sppropriate Government by making a representation praying for pardon or remission of sentence in terms of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution of India. We make it clear that the power of the President of India under Article 72 or of the Governor under Article 161, being a constitutional power cannot be under the restriction imposed by Section 433- A Cr.P.C. Section 433-A Cr.P.C. can restrict the power under Section 432 Cr.P.C. or Section 433 Cr.P.C. but it cannot restrict the constitutional powers under Article 72 or 161 of the Constitution, just as no !imitation statute can restrict the constitutional power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This is because the Constitution is a higher law and the statute is subordinate to it.
pp. 248–249, margin G
The appellant may also file a petition before the High Court if the appellant is entitled to the benefit of any Rule or G.O. of the State Government for remission of the sentence. R.R. Appeal dismissed.
p. 249, margin C