A convict under sections 489A to 489D IPC sought release under a State remission order issued on Gandhi Centenary. The Supreme Court held currency notes fall within the Union List, so only the Central Government could remit his sentence, and dismissed the habeas corpus petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
852
G.V.RAMANAIAH
.I
t.
THE SUPERI1'TENDENT OF CEN1RAL JAIL, RAJAHMUNDRY AND OTHERS
October 10, 1973
[H. R. KHANNA' AND R. S. SAJUCARIA, JJ.]
B
Constitution of India, 19SO-Art. 161-V/l Schedule-Entry I List ll/, Entry 93, List I and Entry 64, List //-Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 8 of 1898) s. 402-Whether State Government can remit sentence in respect of oOences under ss. 489A 10 489D; /.P.C.
| The petitiorier, along with others, was convicted and sentencedofoffcnce3 underss.489-A to489~u.I.P.C. relating to currency notes and bank notes. On the occasionofGandhi Centenary the State Government granted special remii- sionofsentences to various categories of prisonerswhowere convicted of offences against laws relating to matterstowhich the executive powerofthe State extended. The jail authorities released someofthe other accused but the petitioner was not released, because, accordit:ig totherespondentState.the State Government had no power to remit the sentence in respect_oi_otfences relating toamatter whichwaswithinthesphereofthe executive powerofthe Union and notofthe State and that the releaseofthe other accusedwas a mistake. |
c |
|---|---|
| Dismissing the writ petition under Art. 32, | D |
| HEW: (l)Unders.402(3),Cr. P.C. the appropriate Governmentis the Central Governmentinrespectofcase.,wh-~rethe sentenceisfor an o rencc ~gainstany law relating to a mattertowhich the executive powerofthe Union. extends. Under Art.161,the Governor's powertogivepardon etc..iswith respect t')anoffence against_any law relating to a matter to which the execu·_ _fivepowerofthe State extends._Currency, coinage and legal tender, arematten which are expressly includedinEntry 36, List I, Schedule VII. Entry93speci· fically confers on the ParJiament the power to legislate with regardto ' 10Jfencew against laws with respect to anyofthe matters in the Union List".Read together, these entries put it beyond doubt that currency notes and bank notel are matters which are exclusively withinth!legislative comoetenceofthe Union Legislature. The offences for which the petitioner had been convicted were offences relating to a mattertowhich the executive powerofthe Union extends and the appropriate Government competenttoremit the sentenee wouldbethe Central Government and not the State Government.(SSSB-DJ (2) Entryno.1ofList III would show that the ambitofcriminal lawwa<i first enlarged by including in it the Penal Code and thereafter excluding all offen· _ces_agaimt laws with respect to any of the matters specified in List IorListll. The reason for such inclusion and exclusion seems tobethat offences against laws with respect to anyofthe matters specified in List IorListIIare given a place in Entry 93, List I and Entry 64, List II. The Penal Codeisacompil'1.- tionofpenal laws, providingtothe various entries in the different listsofVII Schedule. Manyofthe offences in the Code relatetomatters which are speci- fically covered by the entriesinthe Union List. This excluding clause in Entry no.l of ListlIIread with Entries36and93of List I shows beyond all doubt thatinrespect of offences falling under ss.489Ato4890only the Central Govefnmentiscompetent to suspendorremit the sentenceofa convict. [856 B-CJ (3) The Government Order in question could not fall under the head "Cri· n1inalLaw".Itwasan act doneintheext>rciseofhis executive functionsby the Governor under Art.161oftheConstitution. (857q (4)The wrong release of .the otheraccu1ieddid notgivearighttothe petitioner to claim the benefitoftheG.0.[857,DJ |
E E G I-I |
c
D
E
E
G
Re N. V. Nataraian A.I.R. 1965 Mad. II and R. L Aurora Ram Ditta Mal v. State of U.P. & Ors. A.I.R. 19S8 All. 126 distinguished.
G. ¥. RAMANAIAH v. SUPDT.•.CENTRAL JAIL (Sarkaria, /.) 853
A
ORIGINAL JUIUSD!CTION : Writ Petition No. 1435 of 1973. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ in the nature of habeas corpus.
·.. ' .
P. K. Rao and K •. R. Nagara;a, for the petitioner.
ll
P. Ram Reddy, J:>., P. Rao, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
SARKARIA, J .-The principal question· of law that falls to be determined in this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner is : which is tne appropriate Government-Central or th_e State. Government-empowered to remit the c sentence of a person convicted of offences under. sections 489-A to 489:0 of the Penal Code ?
The material facts giving rise to this question. are not in dispute and may be stated as under :
G. V. Ramanaiah was convicted of offences under sections 489-A to 489-D, Penal Code, on 17th July, 1968, by the Sessions Court, D Nellore (Andhra Pradesh) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of IQ years. Six other persons namely, (I) B. Sitarami· reddi; (2) M. Rarigareddy; (3) Ch. Somireddy; (4) K. E. Lakshman; (5) K. Balaram and (6) T .. Mallikharjundu, were also tried and convicted of offences under all or some of the sections 489-A to 489D, Pe~! Code and were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment by the same Court. On the occasion of Gandhi Centenary celebraE tions, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, purporting to exercise the powers under Article 161 of the Constitution, issued G.O. No. Ms. 1321, Home (Prisons A) Department, dated 25th September. 1969, granting special remission of sentenres to various categories of prisoners mentioned therein. The preamble of this G.O. expressly limits its operation to "prisoners who are convicted of offences against laws relating to matters to which the executive power of the State F extends". The jail authorities obviously misinterpreting the aforesaid G-0., granted the benefit of remission thereunder to prisoners: B. Sitaramireddi, M. Rangareddi, K. Balaram and T. Mallikharjundu and released them from jail. The mistake came to the notice of the Inspector-General of Prisons, and, as a result of his intervention, the release of the petitioner and another prisoner, K. E. Lakshman, was stopped and they are still undergoing the .remaining terms of their G sentences. The petitioner submitted several applications to the State Government, urging it to release him in exercise of its power of clemency under section 401. Crime Procedure Code, but without suc:ess. The petitioner moved the Hi~h Court of Andhra Pradesh by application under section 491 (1) (a) and (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was dismissed by a judgment, dated 18th January, 1973. H
The petition has been opposed bv the respondents on the ground that the State Government has no power to remit the sentence of the petitioner, who was convicted of offences relating to a matter, which
[ 1974] 1 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
854
was within the sphere of the executive power of the Uni?n and n<!t of the State. It has also been averred that· the aforesaid four 1:1~ soners were released owing to a mistake on the part of the Jail authorities and they arc liable to be remanded to undergo the vnexpired terms of their sentence, if. the State Government cancels the remission granted to them by 1I11Stake.
Section 401 ( 1), Criminal Procedure Code, gives power to the appropriate Government to suspend the ex7cution of the .sentence, or to remit the whole or ai1y part of the purushment to which .a person conYicted of an offence has been sentenced. Its sub-section (6) provides :
B
"The appropriate Government may, by general !'Ulc or C special orders, give directions as to suspension of sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be presented and dealt with ........ " Seetio11 402(3) of the Cock dc1ines 'appropriate Government' thus: "In this section and in section 401, the expression approD priate Government' shall mean(a) in cases where the sentence is for an offence against, or the order referred to in sub-section ( 4A) of section 401 is passed under, any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central Government; and E (b) in other cases. the State Government."
Article 161 of the Constitution gives power to the Governor of a State, "to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends"· Article 72 confers similar powers on the President, to be exercised within the sphrre of the executive power of the Union.
As under the Government of India Act, 1935, so under the Constitution, the distribution of executive powers follow, in substance, the distribution of legislative powers. The provisions primarily concerned with such distribution are to be fotmd in Articles 73 and 162. Subject to the limitations mentioned in these Articfes (73 and 162), the executive power of the Union or the State, broadly speaking, is co-extensive and co-terminus with its respective kgislative power.
The question is to be considered in the light of the above criterion. Thus considered, it will resolve itself into the issue : Are the provisions of sections 489-A to 489-D. Penal Code, under which the petitioner was convicted, a law relating to a matter to which the legislative power of the State or the Union extends0
F
G
H
G. v. RAMANAIAH v. SUPDT. CENTRAL JAIL (Sarkaria, !.) 855
A
These four scctio~ were added to the Penal Code under the caption, "Of Currency Notes and Bank Notes", by Currency Notes Forgery Act. 1899, in order to make better provisions for tbe protection of Currency and Bank Notes against forgery. It is not disputed, as was done before the High Court in the application under section 491 (1 ), Criminal Procedure Code, that this bunch II of sections is a law by itself. . "Currency, coinage and legal tender" are matters, which are expressly included in Entry No. 36 of the Un.ion List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Entry No. 93 of the Union List in the same Schedule specifically confers on the Parliament the power to legislate with regard to "offences against laws with respect to any of the matters in the Union List". Read together, these entries put it beyond doubt that Currency Notes and Bank c Notes, to which the offences under sections 489-A to 489'D relate, are matters which are exclusively within the legislative competence of the Union Legislature. It follows therefrom that the offences for which the petitioner has been convicted, are offences relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, and the "appropriate Government" competent to remit the sentence of the petitioner, would be the Central Government and not the State GovernD ment.
Mr. P. K. Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the entire Indian Penal Code, including sections 489-A to 489-D, as at the co=encement of the Constitution, would fall under the Head "Criminal law", which finds a place in Entry No. 1 of the Concurrent List. According to the learned counsel in that Entry, E the clause, "excluding offences against laws with respec.t to matters in List I or List II", takes effect and operates only so long as no law is made in respect of any of those matters specified in List I or List 11, and since in the present case, the Governor has made the G. 0., which is a "criminal law", the aforesaid excluding clause in Entry I does not operate. In support of this argument . the learned counsel bas relied on certain observations of a Bench of the Madras High Court f in Re. N. V. Natrajan.(1) He has also referred to paragraph 22.128, page 965 of H. M. Seervai's Constitutional Law of India; Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution and R. L. Aurora Ram Ditta Mal v. State of U.P. & others(2 ).
In reply, Mr. Rama Reddy, learned counsel for' the respondents, maintains that the G. 0. in question does not fall under the head G "Criminal law" and that this pOSition is crystal clear on a combined reading of Entry 1 of List Ill and Entries 36 and 93 of List I. According to the learned counsel, even if the G. 0. is assumed to fall under the head "Criminal law" in Entry 1 of List III, then also the proviso to Article 162 read \ith Articles n·and 73 of the Constitution would prevent this matter from falling within the executive power of the State. Our attention has also been invited in this connection to H the Government of India letter No. 40/58-Judl.I, dated 31st December, 1958, addressed to all State Governments (Annexure R. 1).
(1.) A.I. R. 1965 Madra' 11.
(2) A. T. R. 1958 Allahabad 126.
[ 1974 ~ 1 s.c.R.
SUPREMI! COURT REPORTS
856
A
Entry 1 of the Concurrent LiSt reads thus :
"Criminal law including all matters included in the Indian Penal Code at the commencement of this Constitution but excluding offences against laws with respect to any of the matters specified in List I or List II and excluding the use of naval, military or air forces or_ any other armed forces of the Union in aid of the civil power."
, (emphasis supplied> A plain reading of the .above Entry No. 1 would show that the ambit of 'Criminal law' was frst enlarged by including in it the Indian Penal Code, and, thereafter, from such enlarged ambit all offences against laws with respect to any of the matters specified in List I or List· JI were specifically excluded. The reason for such_ inclusion and exclusion seems to be that offences against laws with respect to any. of the matters specified in List I or List II are given a place in Entry. No. 93 of List I and Entry No. 64 of List Il in the Seventh Schedule. The Indian Penal Code is a compilation of penal Jaws, providing for offences relating to a variety of matters, which are referable to the various Entries in the different Lists of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. Many of the offences in the Penal Code relate to matters, which are specifically covered by the Entries in the Union List. Examples of sµch offences are to be found in Chapter VII, offences relating to the Army,' Navy and Air Force; Chapter IX-A, offences relating to Elections; Chapter Xll, offences relating to coin and Government stamps; Chapter XIU, offences relating to Weights and Me1!5ures; and the bunch of sections 489-A to 489-E, offences relating to· Currency-Notes and Bank-Notes, which are referable to Entries Nos. 4, 72, 36, 50 and 36, respectively, of List I of the Seventh Schedule. This excludln~ clause in Entry No. 1, List ID read with Entries Nos. 36 and· 93 of the Union List, shows beyond all manner of doubt that in respect of offences falling under sections 489-A to 489-D, only the Central Government is competent to suspend or remit the sentence of a convict.
In N. V. Natarajan's case (supra), the High Court of Madras was considering the constitutional validity of section 5 of the Madras Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1957. The primary question before that court was, whether the impugned provision related to a matter covered by 'public order' in Entry 1, read with Entry 64 of List II. After answering this question in t..1e affirmative, the learned Judges considered, in addition, whether that matter would also fall under the head, "Criminal law" in Entry 1 of List m. There, it was contended that because National honour falls under the residuary Entry 97 in the Union List, it is excluded from the purview of "Criminal law" in the Concurrent List. This contention was negatived· and, in that con.text. the learned Judges observed :
"Our understanding of the effect of the exclusion by the words 'excluding offences against laws "ith respect to any of the matters specified in List I or List II' is that, till a law is made with respect to any of the matters, in List I or List II; no limit is placed upon and the exclusion does-not operate
B
c
f),
E
G
H
G. v. RAMANAIAH v. surir. CENTRAL JAIL (Sarkaria, J,) 857
A
to limit the ambit of lli!MllJwer under the head of 'Criminal law' in List ill." ·
It will be seen that the prec~ question for decision in that case was materially different. : The occasion for examining the limits of the executive powers of the Union and a State with reference to the various types of offences in tha Indian Penal Code never arose in II that case. It is, therefore, not a profitable task to cull out an observation from the oontext of that case and use it for a different purpose. Moreover, in that case the High Court was considering the validity of a statutory provision enacted by the State Legislature. In the instant case, the Government Order ·in question cannot fall under the head "Criminal Law". It is an act .done in the exercise of his executive functions by the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution. The c observations in N. V. Natarajan's case, therefore, are of little assistance in determining the question before us.
Nor do the general observations in paragraph 22.12& of H. M. Seervai's Constitutional Law of India advance the case of the petitioner. The learned author did not comment with regard to the scope and the effect of the excluding clause in Entry 1 of List III.
D The facts ol' R. L. Aurora Ram Ditta Mal's case (supra) were entirely different and we do not propose to discuss the same.
Mr. P. K. Rao next contends in a somewhat half-hearted maJll\er that even if the State Government had extended the benefit of its G.O., owing to a mistake to four other persons, similarly placed, it was not fair to deny the same treatment to the petitioner. This contention must be repelled for the obvious reason that two wrongs never make a right,
For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is dismissed.
P. B. R.
Petition dismissed.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the State Government or the Central Government is the appropriate Government competent to remit a sentence for offences under sections 489A to 489D IPC relating to currency and bank notes.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Re N. V. NatrajanDistinguished¶57
Re N. V. Nataraian A.I.R. 1965 Mad. II
R. L. Aurora Ram Ditta Mal v. State of U.P.Distinguished¶70
R. L Aurora Ram Ditta Mal v. State of U.P. & Ors. A.I.R. 1958 All. 126 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
G. V. Ramanaiah
The Superintendent of Central Jail, Rajahmundry
Others
H. R. Khanna
R. S. Sarkaria
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
