HARBANS SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are called upon to test the correctness of the rule laid down by an Hon'ble single Judge of this Court in Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986 Cri LJ 1037. The facts which justify placement of this matter before this Bench are apparent from the referring order prepared by one of us and do not bear repetition.

(2.) In Baljit Singh's case (1986 Cri LJ 1037) (Punj and Har) (supra) the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem were introduced in the governmental functions of granting remissions under S.432, Cr. P.C. and requiring the Government to reconsider the cases of the then petitioners and passing a speaking order after giving opportunity to the affected prisoners to make their representations, if any. Now the point to be seen is whether the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem have any such place in the context of the power conferred on the appropriate Government under S.432, Cr. P.C. The answer to it would emerge by first discovering the nature of the power conferred under the said provision on the appropriate Government, for seemingly in Baljit Singh's case (supra) the Hon'ble single Judge was apparently led to the view that such function of the Government was not merely administrative but quasi-judicial.

(3.) Way-bock in K.M. Nanavati v. State of Bombay AIR 1961 SC 112 the Supreme Court while exploring the area of 'mercy power', which includes power to remit sentences, left historical touches in its decision but switched on to a different question without formally pronouncing on the matter. Those extracts are :