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

STATE OF PUNJAB versus KESAR SINGH

Decided
22 July 1996
Judges listed
A.S. ANAND (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 787 · 1996 INSC 764

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.

Special leave granted.

p. 787, margin F

The respondent was eomfrted for an offence under Section 302/34 !PC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the judgment and order dated May 28, 1987. After he had undergone a little more than 8 years of sentence he filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana al Chandigarh seeking premature release. The High Court by the impugned order dated January 18. 1986 considered the case on its merits and allowed the petition directing the release of the respondent forthwith. The State is aggrieved of the order dated January 18, 1986, hence this appeal.

pp. 787–788, margin G

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion the direction given by the High Court was not at all appropriate or permissible in law. The mandate of Section 433 Cr.P.C. enables the Government in an appropriate case to commute the sentence of a convict and to prematurely order his release before expiry of the sentence as imposed by the courts. Clause (b) of Section 433 Cr.P.C. provides that the sentence of imprisonment for life may be commuted for imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or fine. Undisputedly, the respondent had not completed 14 years sentence when he filed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P .C. seeking premature release. The direction of the High Court therefore to prematurely release the respondent and set him at liberty forthwith could not have been made. That apart, even if the High Court could give such a direction, it could only direct consideration of the case of premature release by the Government and could not have ordered the premature release of the respondent itself. The right to exercise the power under Section 433 Cr.P.C. vests in the Government and has to be exercised by the Government in accordance with the rules and established principles. The impugned order of the High Court cannot, therefore, be sustained and is hereby set aside.

p. 788, margin A

This order shall, however, not come in the way of the respondent for approaching the Government for commutation of his sentence and premature release in terms of the order issued by the Governor of Punjab on March 6, 1985. As and when such an application is made, the State Government shall decide that application on merits uninfluenced by this order or by the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order. T.N.A.

p. 788, margin E