Penal Code, 1860 ~— s.53 r/w s.45 — Whether imprisonment for life in terms of s.53 r/w s.45 of IPC meant imprisonment for rest of the life of the prisoner or a convict undergoing life imprisonment has a right to claim remission and whether as per the principles enunciated in paras 91 to 93 of Swamy Shraddananda (2) case, a special category of sentence may be made for the very few cases where the death penalty might be substituted by the punishment of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term in excess of fourteen years and to put that category beyond application of remission — Held (per majority): Imprisonment for life in terms of s.53 r/w s.45 of IPC-only means imprisonment for rest of life of the convict — The right to claim remission, commutation, reprieve etc. as provided under Art.72 or Art.161 of the Constitution will always be available being Constitutional Remedies untouchable by the Court ~ The ratio laid down in Swamy Shraddananda case that a special category of sentence; instead of death can be substituted by the punishment of imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 14 years and put that category beyond application of remission is well-founded — Constitution of India, 1950 — Arts.72 and 161 — Sentence / Sentencing — Remission. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss.432 and 433 - Whether the “Appropriate Government” is permitted to exercise the power of remission u/ss.432/433 CrPC after parallel power has been exercised by the President under Art.72 or the Governor under Art.161 or by this Court in its Constitutional power under Art.32 — Held (per majority): The exercise of power u/ss.432 and 433 of CrPC will be available to the Appropriate Government even if such consideration was made earlier and exercised u/Art.72 by the President or u/Art.161 by the Governor—As far as the application of Art.32 of the Constitution by Supreme Court is concerned, the powers u/ss.432 and 433 are to be exercised by the

Appropriate Government statutorily and it is not for the _ Supreme Court to exercise the said power and it is always left to be decided by the Appropriate Government — Sentence / Sentencing — Remission.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.432(7) & (6) — Whether s.432(7) CrPC clearly gives primacy to the Executive Power of the Union and excludes the Executive Power of the State where the power of the Union is coextensive ~— Whether the Union or the State has primacy over the subject-matter enlisted in List Ill of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India for exercise of power of remission — Whether there can be two Appropriate Governments in a given case u/s.432(7) CrPC ~ Held (per majority): The status of Appropriate Government whether Union Government or the State Government will depend upon the order of sentence passed by the Criminal Court as has been stipulated in s.432(6) and in the event of specific Executive Power conferred on the Centre under a law made by the Parliament or under the Constitution itself then in the event of the conviction and sentence covered by the said law of the Parliament or the provisions of the Constitution even if the Legislature of the State is also empowered to make a law on the same subject and coextensive, the Appropriate Government will be the Union Government having regard to the prescription contained in the proviso to Art.73(1)(a) of the Constitution ~— The principle stated in the decision in GN. Ramanaiah case should be applied — Cases which fall within the four corners of s.432(7)(a) by virtue of specific Executive Power conferred on the Centre, the same will clothe the Union Government the primacy with the status of Appropriate Government — Barring cases falling u/s.432(7)(a), in all other cases where the offender is sentenced or the sentence order is passed within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned State, the State Government would be the Appropriate Government — Constitution of India— Seventh Schedule, List fll -Sentence / Sentencing — Remission.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.432(1) and (2) -— Whether suo motu exercise of power of remission u/s.432(1) is permissible in the scheme of the section, if yes, whether the procedure prescribed in sub-section (2) of the same section is mandatory or not— Held(per majority): No suo motu power of remission is exercisable u/s.432(1) CrPC — It can only be initiated based on an application of the person convicted as provided u/s.432 (2) and that ultimate order of suspension or remission should be guided by the opinion to be rendered by the Presiding Officer of the concerned Court — Sentence / Sentencing — Remission.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -— s.435(1) — Whether the term “Consultation” stipulated in s.435(1) CrPC implies “Concurrence” — Specific prescription contained in $.435(1)(a) CrPC read along with Arts. 72, 73(i)(a), 161 and 162 of the Constitution — Principles derived-on how and in what manner the expression “consultation” occurring in $.435(1)(a) can be construed — Held (per majority): Having regard to the principles so culled out, it is imperative that itis always safe and appropriate to hold that in those situations covered by sub-clauses (a) to (c) of s.435(1) falling within the - jurisdiction of the Central Government it will assume primacy and consequently the process of “Consultation” in reality held as the requirement of “Concurrence”.

Words and Phrases — Term “consultation” stipulatec 8.435(1) CrPC — Meaning of.