Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH versus CHARANJIT KAUR

Decided
15 February 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 735 · 1996 INSC 264
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

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. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 735, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana made on January 1, 1995 in C.M. No. 6872/95. The admitted facts are that the respondent was convicted for an offence of murder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Admittedly, she was convicted on June 2, 1984 for an offence committed on September 24, 1983. She has been in custody from September 19, 1983. An application has been filed in the High Court for her premature release. In the impugned order, the High Court has directed the release of the respondent on the ground that the State had not filed the counter-affidavit, in spite of that fact that the case was adjourned on more than three occasions. The question is : whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the "Code") to release the prisoner.

pp. 735–736, margin F

Section 433 of the Code empowers the Government, in an appropriate case, without the consent of the person sentenced, to commute the sentence and to prematurely release the convict. Clause (b) thereof provides for a sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or fine. Indisputably, she did not even complete 14 years which is a minimum mandatory sentence required to be served under the Code. At best the Court, in an appropriate case, where the prisoner has served the mandatory minimum sentence, may only direct the appropriate Government to consider the commutation of the sentence and prematurely release a particular convict. They can do no further. The Government would consider such direction based upon the conduct of the prisoner and other relevant circumstances and act upon it.

p. 736, margin B

Thus conside1ed, we are of the view that the High Court had committed grave error of law in directing release of the convict on the lapse on the part of the appellant-State in filing the counter-affidavit.

p. 736, margin D

The appeal is accordingly allowed. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 736, margin E