Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(vii) Parole can be granted number of times whereas there is limitation in the case of furlough.

(viii) Since furlough is not granted for any particular reason, it can be denied in the interest of the society."

(Emphasis supplied)

7. In the decision reported as 2016 (7) SCC 1 Union of India vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors. the Constitution Bench noting the distinction between the constitutional power of clemency under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India and Section 432 Cr.P.C. which is a statutory power of remission held that the constitutional jurisdiction of grant of remission as provided under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution will always remain untouched even if a sentence of imprisonment for life is awarded to the convict without providing scope for grant of any remission by way of statutory executive action however, the said plenary jurisdiction will not be available to the exercise of statutory jurisdiction of grant of remission under Section 432 Cr.P.C. Supreme Court further noted that though not an attempt to belittle the scope and ambit of executive action of the State in exercise of its power of statutory remission, when it comes to the question of equation with a judicial pronouncement, it must be held that such executive action should give due weight and respect to the latter in order to achieve the goals set in the Constitution. It was thus held that when by way of a judicial decision, after a detailed analysis, having regard to the proportionality of the crime committed, it is decided that the offender deserves to be punished with the sentence of life imprisonment, that is, for the end of his life or for a specific period of 20 years or 30 years or 40 years such a conclusion should survive without any interruption. Referring to Section 433A Cr.P.C. the majority decision noted that when the minimum imprisonment is prescribed under the Statute, there will be every justification and authority for the Court which considers the nature of offence for which conviction is imposed on the offender, for which offence, the extent of punishment provided for is either death or life imprisonment, to ensure the interest of the public at large and the society, such person should undergo imprisonment for a specified period even beyond 14 years without any scope for remission.

8. Supreme Court in Union of India vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors. (supra) also noted that remissions were of two types. One type of remission is what is earned by a prisoner under the Prison Rules or other relevant Rules based on his/her good behavior or such other stipulations prescribed therein and the other remission being one granted by the appropriate government in exercise of its power under Section 432 Cr.P.C. Though the view expressed in paras 224 and 226 of the report held that the first category of remission being under relevant Jail Manual which depends upon the good conduct or behavior of the convict while undergoing sentence awarded to him and generally referred as "earned remissions" are not referable to the second category, that is, remission of sentence under Section 432 Cr.P.C. which requires specific assessment in an individual matter and is case specific, however, in para 62 of the report it was clarified that therefore, in the latter case when a remission of a substantive sentence is granted under Section 432 Cr.P.C, then and then only giving credit to the earned remission can take place and not otherwise. It was further held that in a case of life imprisonment, meaning thereby the entirety of one's life, unless there is a commutation of such sentence for any specific period, there would be no scope to count the earned remission.

16. Considering the gravity of offence, Section 32A NDPS Act prohibits the grant of remission to a convict for an offence under NDPS Act except under Section 27 of the Act. Even though judgment of the Court cannot be a bar to exercise of the power by the executive under Section 432 Cr.P.C., as held by the Supreme Court in V.Sriharan (supra), the executive action should give due weight and respect to the judicial decision arrived at by taking into consideration all essential factors including the seriousness of the offence. Further, Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. also provides for taking the opinion of the presiding officer who convicted, as to whether the application under Section 432 Cr.P.C. should be granted or refused.

18. As held in Union of India vs. V.Sriharan (supra), a prisoner is entitled to three kinds of remissions , firstly, under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution to be exercisable by the President and Governor of the State. This power of the President and Governor being plenary can be exercised to suspend, remit and commute the sentences in certain cases including where death sentence is awarded and confirmed. This power under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, as held in Maru Ram vs. Union of India and subsequently followed in the latter decisions, is unaffected by provisions of any statute or even by a judgment of a Court prescribing sentence of life without remission. The two other kinds of remissions available to a prisoner are one under Section 432 Cr.P.C. and the other earned by a prisoner under the Prison Rules, based on his/her good behaviour and/or such other stipulations prescribed in the Prison Rules. Though the sources of these two remissions are different statutes, however, grant of remission earned by a prisoner under the Prison Rules, whether for good behaviour or for complying other conditions has bearing on remission of the substantive sentence granted under Section 432 Cr.P.C., as while considering grant of remission under Section 432 Cr.P.C., the earlier remission granted are taken into consideration. This is evident from Rule 1189 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which reads as under:-