Samjuben Gordhanbhai Koli v. State Of Gujarat ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Neutral Citations

2010 INSC 683

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2005, decided on October 7, 2010

Disposition

Attorney(S)

C.D Parmar, Dr. Kailash Chand and S. Talukdar, Advocates, for the Appellant;
Hemantika Wahi, Ms Jesal and Ms Renuka Sahu, Advocates, for the Respondent.

Judges

Justice Markandey Katju
Justice T.S. Thakur

Acts

Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution of India
Article 161 of the Constitution
Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Article 72 of the Constitution

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Supreme Court heard an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 17-12-2003 in Criminal Appeal No. 812 of 1995, which had affirmed the appellant’s conviction. The Supreme Court had previously granted the appellant bail on 09-05-2005, but this order was subject to the outcome of the present appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether any infirmity existed in the High Court’s judgment upholding the appellant’s conviction.
Whether the appellant could obtain remission of the remaining sentence directly from the Court.
Clarification of the interplay between Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the constitutional powers of remission under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Requested that the Court itself grant remission of the remainder of the sentence.

The opinion does not record arguments advanced by the respondent.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court conducted an independent review of the High Court’s decision and found “no infirmity” in the judgment, noting that the High Court had “dealt with the matter in great detail.” Consequently, the conviction stood affirmed.

Regarding remission, the Court held that:

Remission is an executive function; therefore, only the appropriate Government may grant it under Section 432 CrPC or under the constitutional clemency powers in Articles 72 and 161.
The statutory restriction in Section 433-A CrPC can limit the powers under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC, but it cannot curtail the constitutional powers of the President or Governor. The Court analogized this to the impossibility of any statute limiting the High Court’s power under Article 226, emphasizing the supremacy of the Constitution over ordinary legislation.
The appellant is free to submit a representation to the appropriate Government or file a petition in the High Court invoking any applicable State remission rules or government orders.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, cancelled the bail bonds issued on 09-05-2005, and directed that the appellant be taken into custody to serve the remainder of the sentence.

Implications: The decision leaves the conviction intact and clarifies that constitutional clemency powers are not subject to Section 433-A CrPC. No new precedent was set beyond this reiteration of constitutional supremacy; the immediate effect is confined to the appellant’s custody and the procedural route for any future remission request.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Samjuben Gordhanbhai Koli v. State Of Gujarat .

Order

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat dated 17-12-2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 812 of 1995. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and order and hence we are not repeating the same here.

2. 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. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

3. By order dated 9-5-2005 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.

4. The 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. However, the appellant will be free to seek appropriate redress from the appropriate 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.

5. 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 CrPC. Section 433-A CrPC can restrict the power under Section 432 CrPC or Section 433 CrPC but it cannot restrict the constitutional powers under Article 72 or Article 161 of the Constitution, just as no limitation 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.

6. The appellant may also file a petition before the High Court if the appellant is entitled to the benefit of any rule or GO of the State Government for remission of the sentence.

Samjuben Gordhanbhai Koli v. State Of Gujarat .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Samjuben Gordhanbhai Koli v. State Of Gujarat .

Comments