K. M. NANAVATI versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

K. M. NANAVATI

THE STATE OF BOMBAY

(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KA~Ult, P. B. GAJENDltA-GADKAlt, K. SuBBA RAO and- IC N. WANCHOO, JJ.)

Sentence, suspension of-Order by Governor during pendency of appeal in the Supreme Cotirt-If constitutionally valid-Governor's power of clemency-Court's power of granting bail or suspending sentence-Harmonious exercise of two powers-The Constitution of India, Arts. I6I, I42-Suprcme Court Rules, Order XXI, r. 5.

The petitioner was Seco.nd in Command of l. N. S. Mysore which came.to Bombay in the beginning of March, 1959· Soon thereafter he was arrested on charge of murder under s. 302 of ·the Indian Peria] Code and was placed, and continued to remain, in naval custody all along during his trial. In due course he was placed on trial by jury before the Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in which the jury returned verdict of not guilty by majority; but the Sessions Judge disagreeing with the verdict of the jury made reference to the High Court which convicted the petitioner under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. On the same day when the High Court pronounced its judgment the Gover-nor o(Bombay passed an order under Art. '161 of the Constitu-tion of India suspending the sentence passed by the High Court of Bombay on the petitioner until the appeal intended to be filed by him in the Supreme Court against his conviction and sentence was disposed of and subject meanwhile to the condition that he shall be detained in the Naval Jail custody. warrant for the arrest of the petitioner which was issued in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court was returned unserved with the report thaf it could not be served in vie1v of the order of the Governor suspending the sentence passed upon the petitioner.

In course of the hearing of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court filed by the petitioner in the High Court the matter of the unexecuted warrant was placed before it and Special Bench of'.the High Court after examining the validity of the action taken by the Governor came to the c011-clusion that the order passed by the Governor was not invalid, that the order for detention of the petitioner in naval custody was not unconstitutional and that the sentence passl'd on the petitioner having been suspended the provisions of 0. XXI, r. 5, of the Supreme Court Rules rlid not apply and it was not n.ecessary for the petitioner to surrender to his sentence.

Thereafter· the petitioner filed an application for special leave in the Supreme Court and also another application pray-ing for exemption from· compliance with the aforesaid rule and

Sf!pteniber 5.

I<. M. /tw""""':ati v. The State of Bombay

for the hearing of his application {or special leave without surrendering to his sentence. His pica at first was that as he was not free man it was not possible for him to comply with the requirements of 0. XX!, r. 5, of the Supreme Court Rules; but he subsequently amended it to the effect that the aforesaid Rule did not apply to his case in view of the Governor's order. On reference of this matter by Division Bench of this Court to the Constitution Bench for hearing.

Held, that the Governor had no power to grant the suspen-sion of sentence for the period during which the matter was sub-judice in this Court. The Governor's qrder suspending the sentence could only operate untir the matter brcame sub-ju<lice in this Court on the filing of the petition for special leave to appeal whereupon this Court being in seisin of the matter would consider whether 0. XX!, r. 5 should be applied or the petitio-. ner should be exempted from the operation thereof as prayed for. It would then be for tliis Court to pass such orders as it thought fit as to whether bail should be granted to the petitio-ner or he should surrender to his sentence or to pass such other order as the court deemed lit in the circumstances of the case.On the principle of harmonious construction and to a\'oid possible conflict between the powers given under Art. 161 to the Governor and under Art. 142 to the Supreme Court, both of which are absolute and unfettered in their respective fields of operation, it mu;t be held that Art. 161 does not deal wjth the suspension of sentence during the time that Art. 142 is in opera-tion and the matter is sub-judice in the Supreme Court.

Per KAPVK .J. (dissmti11g)-The language of Art. 161 is of the widest amplitude. It is plenary and an act of grace and clemency and may be :termed as bt·nign prerogative of mercy. The power of pardon is absolute and exercisable at any time. Rules framed under Art. 145 are subordinate legislation and cannot override the provisions of Art. 161 of the Constitution itself. While the Governor's power to grant pardon is power specially conferred upon him as was vested in the British \;overnor in British days, the power given lo the Court under Art. 142(1) is general power exercisable for doing complete justice in any cause or matter, and if they deal with the same matter then Art. 161 must prevail over Art. 142(1). The two ·pOY•crs may have the same ~ffecl but they operate in distinct fields on different principles taking wholly irreconcilable factors into consideration.

The action taken by the executive being the exercise of overriding power is not subject to judicial review.

It could not have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution that the amplitude of executive power should be restricted as to become suspended for the period of pendency of an appeal in the SupremeCourt.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISDICT.lON: Criminal Misc.

Petn. No. 320/60.

Application for exemption from c01npliance with the requirements of Rule 5 of Order XXI, Supreme Court Rules, 1950 (e.s amended).

1960. July 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.

S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath

and P. L. Vohra, for the petitioner.

H. M . . Seervai, Advocate-General for the State of

Bombay, Atul Setalved and R. H. Dhebar, for the res-pondent.

[Sinha C. J.-Do you dispute the power of the · Court to make this rule ? ] ..

H. M. Seervai :-No, My Lord. The Court imposes

penalty in its judicial capacity; the Executive remits the penalty in its executive capacity. There is no clash between the two powers. The powers of the Executive do not collide with the powers of the judiciary. The prerogative of the King or the Pre. sident can never be in conflict with the judiciary, executive or legislature. Prerogatives come to aid the process of justice. Power of pardon is plenary in nature and unfettered. It could be exercis1Jd at any ·time after the commission of the offence, before indict-ment, during the trial and after the trio.I.

[Sinha C. J .. ".""'lir·not that power of pe.rdoII--exercised before the trial ?] ·

Pe.rd.on is given after the offence is proved. In the

United States the question is never asked whether the· President has invaded the power of the judiciary.

[Sinha C. J.-So far as India is concerned take case like this : man is convicted for murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. But subsequently it is found that the deceased died a. natural death or the deceased appeared alive afterwards. What will happen ?]

pardon will be granted (s. 401). The President is

entitled to pardon person convicted for an offence punishable with death, United Statea v. Wilson, 8

L. Ed. 640 e.t 644, Ex parte W eUa, 15 L. Ed. 421, 423.

K. M. Nanal!ati

Th• Stat• of Bombay

Tiu State of /Jomliay

free and uucouditiona.I pardon has the effect of obli•,era.ting the crime. Section 426(1) empowers the Court to suspend the sentence or graut bail. The Ex-ecutive, Judiciary and Legislature, paralysing ea.ch other novor hi•ppens. United States v. Klein, 20 L. Ed. 519, Ex Parte Grossman, 69 L. Ed. 527.

[SuBBA RAO J .-Your argument assumes that if

the Governor's order wa.s valid th1~11 the Supremo Court Rule would not come in. It ma.v not be ueccs-sarily so because in the present case there was a. con-viction and sentenco a.nd the accused has no right of appeal. The accused invited the order of the Governor. Entertaiument of the appeal by special lea.vo is in the discretion of the Supreme Court. Unless them are adequate reasons fur the Govemor tu ma.ke this order, why should WU use our discretion to give exemption to the accused frotn tho rules of the Court ?]

The sentence having been suspended there is nu sentence and therefore this Court need not insist on his surrender.

[Sul!BA RAO J.-The provisions, of Art. 161 did not say that the pow(·r undN it could he exercised notwithstanding other provisions of the Constitution. \Vas it, tberefore, not neeeHsary to hormuuioe this power with other constitutional provi,ion8 8tH:h aH Art. 142 ?]

[KAPUR J.-ln India have the l'cmrtR puwt·r lo suspend sent-0nce?]

Yes, in limited way as j.ll'Ovided ins. 426.

[KAPUR J.-If the sentence is suspended, there is no sentence.]

);o, there i8 nu sentence to surrender to. The cxccu.

tiun of seutcnc(: is au executive power. Thn function of the Court ends with tht> j.1assing uf the sentence. Tu carry the sentence into execution is an exPcutive ur<ler. United States v. Benz, 75 L. Ed. 354, 358.

In India we start withs. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and s. 2\J5 Government of India Act, 1935.

_ Pardo11 is part of the Constitutional ~ehornc,

Balmukand v. King Emperor, L. R. 42 I. A. 133.

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Exercise of prerogatives is in the jurisdiction of the Executive and not the judiciary; Lala Jairam Das v. King Emperor, L. R. 72 I. A. 120. The powers are in aid of justice.

I{. M. Nana.vati v. The Slate of Bonibay

[SUBBA RAO J.-Your argument is that one acts in the judicial fif'ld, while the other acts in the execnt.ive field and hence there is no conflict. But whatever the nature of the power, the Governor in exercising· that power is encroaching on the field occupied by the Supreme· Court. Under the Constitution the Supreme Court can entertain appeals and pass the necessary orders and perhaps, under the rules suspend or stay execution of sentence. On the other hand the Governor under Art. 161 has powers to suspend the sentence. I am suggesting that where there is con-flict of jurisdiction between the .Judiciary and the· Executive is it not reasonable to bring harmony bet-ween these two? What is wrong in confining the power of the Governor to cases where there is no appeal pending before the Supreme Court.? Can the executive interfere -with the jndiciary in the midst of case.?']

Yes, in its administrative capacity it can ask the Advocate-General to eh ter nolle prosequi and termi-nate the trial. This statutory power. Babu [,,al Chokhani v. Emperor, [1937] 1 Cal. 464. Court refused bail but the executive suspended the sentence.

The State of Bihar v. M. Homi, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 78.

Rule 5, Order XXI, of the Supreme Court Rules represents well.settled practice of all courts .but it cannot affect the power of pardon or the exercise of prerogatives which is unfettered. The Buie postulates that there is sentence to.surrender to. Under Arts. 72, 161 the President's prerogative is not made subject to apy parliamentary legislation. There is no limit to Art.. 72 or Art. 161 in the Constitution express or implied, Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, [1955] 1 S. C. R. 1104. The powers of the Court and the Executive are distinct and separate. The Execu-tive comes in after the Court has-performed its fimc-tion.

502 SUPRE:ME COURT REPORTS [1961]

[KAPUR J.-You are talking about Sllspension of K. M. ~·••avati the imntencf' but. can the Supreme Collrt suspend the v. sentence? We can grant bail but can we suspend the

sentence?

Th• State o/ Bombar

Yes, the Supreme Court has the power to st.a.y the execution of sentence.]

[KAPUR .J.-Is the condition imposed upon Com-mander Nana.vs.ti illegal?]

No, nobody has said so.

The Court can say judicially that justice requires

that convicted person should remain in jail bl!t the President can say on considerations of mercy that he should be set at libert.y, King v. S.S. Singh, l.L.R. 32 Pat. 243. Power of preroga tivtt is far wider than the judicial powers of the Court. The exprnssion "at any time" in s. 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, re-cognises this principle.

[GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-Ca.n the naval authorities

keep the petitioner in nave.I custody? Is it legal ?] The naval authorities made no such request. The Governor ordered him to be kept in 1.1a.va.l custody and th~ no.val authorities did not object. There is nothing illegal a.bout it. It was perfectly lega.1. The validity of the Governor's order has not been referred to 'this constitutional bench of the Court. There is a. distinction between illegal e.nd unlawful. Illege.1 is that which the law directly forbids; unlawful is that which the law does not recognisl'.

[SINHA C. J.-What is unlawful may become law-

ful by consent but wha.t is illega.1 cannot become legal even by consent.]

The Governor's order should not be held to be

illegal without a.ny complaint to that effect from the parties concerned aud in their absence. When the na.vy accepted the Governor's order it could be pre-sumed that there was usage, s. 3(3)(12), Navy Act. There is no section in the Navy Act which prohibits such custody.

[GAJENDBAGADKAR J.-Is this the position DOW

that the Provost Marsha.II is keeping the petitioner in

his custody without any express provision of the Navy

Act?]

1<. M. N anavati v. Th• 51•1• of Bombay

Section 14 of the Navy Act. There is .a i;lifference between private person and baval officer being detained in naval custody. Commander Nanavati is still in naval service. He cannot leave the naval service.

[SUBBA RAO J.-There are t\Vo ways of reconciling the powers of the Governor under Art. 161 and those of the Supreme Court under Arts. 142; 144, 145. One way was to say that the Supreme Court had no power when the Executive exercised its powers. The other way was to say that while both had powers, so far as pardon and remission were concerned the Executive had the exclusive power, but as far a.s suspension was concerned, when proceedings were pending in the Supreme Court the Executive could not make an order impinging upon the Supreme Court's power.]But in the interest of jnstice the Supreme Court can pass. any suitable order. The power of the Sup-reme Court under Art. 141 is power generally exer-cisable in all cases but the Governor's'· power is special power. If there is conflict between General power. and special power the. special powe~7 sJ10uld flp~eva1l wt. although I don't admit that th~. !S con.

H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor.General of India,

S. M. Sikri, Advocate-General for the State of Punjab and T. M. Sen, for the Attorney.General of India. There is no conflict at all. The power of the Supreme Court is judicial power ; the power of the Governor-is an executive power. They cannot collide at au:--The Su~eme Court can certainly exercise its power but let it not disregard the power of the executive. Let both the powers be harmonised.

0. B. Agarwala (Amicus Curiae)7 The Supreme

Court is Court of record under Art 129 and has the constitutional privilege of prescribing its procedure under which it will exercise its discretion ve.sted in it under the Constitution. By Art: 145 the Supreme

'9[[6]]° Court has the constitutional power to lay d9wn rules K. M. ;\°(1,,n;·a/1 imposing conditions I under which alone it would enter-v. tain a. special eave petition. The s:"'' of The ma.teria.1 ma.teria.1 rule is made under the constitutional Bombay right given to the Supreme Court a.s given to the Supreme Court a.s to the Supreme Court a.s the Supreme Court a.s Supreme Court a.s a.s Court of Record of Record Record

The ma.teria.1 ma.teria.1 rule is made under the constitutional right given to the Supreme Court a.s given to the Supreme Court a.s to the Supreme Court a.s the Supreme Court a.s Supreme Court a.s a.s Court of Record of Record Record a.nd not under a. la.w made under Art. 245. Subordi-nate legislation presupposes a. rule ma.de under la.ws enacted under Art. 245. I ts analogy cannot be applied to rules under Art. 145. The fa.ct tha.t the rules ma.de by the Supreme Court under Art. 145 require the approval of the President cannot convert the rules into law made under Art. 245.

The rule in question made by the Supreme Court requires that the special leave petition is subject to the condition tha.t the petitioner surrenders to the authority of the Supreme Court, and by passing the order in question the Governor has deprived the Supreme Court of its authority over the custody of the accused pending the special leave !Jetition. Artkle 161 read with Art. 154 shows tha.t the Governor even while exercising his constitutional powers ca.1111ot affect, modify or override the powers of the Supreme Court or the procedure prescribed by it.

After special leave petition is ma.de to it or when the appeal is admitted, the Supreme Court ha.s ample jurisdiction to give relief by way of suspension of sentence under Art. I 41 a.nd the rules. Power of sus-pension of sentence is not exercisable by the Executive when relief ca.n be granted by the trial Court or a. competent Court of appeal.

The a.ppropria.t1> construction of the rule would indicate that the Governor's powers under Art. 161 operate only up to the stage when an application for special leave is ma.de under Art. 136 and cartnot interfere with the authority of the Supreme Court thereafter.

As~uruing. without admitting, that the Governor

could interfere with t.he authority and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court ho could du so only if valid order wa.s made under Art. 161. The order !lllder considera-tion being subject to a.n illegal condiLion is an illegal order. Even if, the condition i~ not illega.1 it has been

operated only by the petitioner's voluntary consent with the object of not complying with the rule of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will decline to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner who by his voluntary act put himself out of its jurisdic. tion.

Under Art. 144 the Governor's authority is bound to aid the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. It is open to the petitioner to approach the Government to modify the Governor's order to enable him to comply with the procedure of the Supreme Court.

[KAPUR J.-Has the Court power to suspend sentence ? Has any court ever done so ? Has any court ever ordered that the sentence will take effect .after certain period of time ?]

The appellate Court has the power to suspend the sentence under Art. 142.

[SINHA C. J.-The Executive can intervene at any time during the trial.]

Yes, in the case of pardon, The State of Bombay v. The United Motors (India) Ltd., [1953] S.C.R. 1069.

[SINHA C. J.-The argument of the petitioner is that there is no sentence in operation and therefore there is nothing to surrender to.]

There is apparently conflict. The Court says the petitioner must surrender to his sentence. The Exe-cutive says that he need not surrender and will remairi in some other custody. The Governor has extended the period of suspension till the decision of the peti-tioner's appeal in this Court. There is clash with the rule of this Court.

[SINHA C. J.-If the Supreme Court refused bail can the cxecuti ve suspend the sentence ?]

No, it.cannot, in cases of suspension there is appar-

ently conflict. There is a. distinction between pardon and suspension. Suspension stands on different footing. Pardon can be granted at any stage but suspension of sentence can be made only after tho sentence is inflicted.

H. ilJ.. Seervai in reply. Nothing in Arts. 142, 145

and ss. 411, 426, Code of Criminal Procedure, will

K. M. Nanavati v. The Stat~ of Bonibay

supersede the powers of the Go\·e1·nor to grant re-

prieve, etc. The Code pf Criminal Procedure gives

I<. ·'[1]· ~\'"""'·a1i tbe pown of suspension, of bail, etc.

[KAPUR J.-Did the Federal Court have power lo suspend a. sentence.]

The State nj

YeR, it had t.he power to grant bail or slay execu-

tion of sentence. The power of the Cu11rt to suspend is not a.bsolute.

[Sr:>HA C. J .-The Executive is bound to eXLCUte t.he orders of the Court.]

Y1•s, but if the Government, after the paRsing of

the Court's order, itHelf in i:s own jurisdiction passes an order suspending the sentence the Executive in that case has no authorit.y to execute the order of the Court, United Stales v. Benz, i5 L. Ed. 354, Ila.Jes Plea.s of the "Crnwn,-lfoprieves bt>fore or after the judgment, p. 412, Ror;ers \'. Peck, 50 L. Ed. 256-Reprieve being granted when mutter wa.s before the Court.

1960. September 5. The Judgment of Sinha, .• J., Ga.jendraga.clka.r, Subba. Hao a.nd Wa.nehoo, ,J,J., was delivered by Sinha. C. J. Kapur, ,J., delivered separate ,Judgment.

SINHA C. ,J.-This mattt•r has uec·11 pla.ce<l before• the Constitution Bench in rather extrnordinary cir-cumsta.ncPs, a.8 will prc"eut.ly :ippear. It involve8 the question as to what is tho content of the power con-ferred on the Gornrnor of a. State under Art. 161 of the Constitution; and whet.her the order of the Governor of llombn.y da.tPd :\'larch 11, 1960, impinges on thti judicial powPrs of this Court., with pn,rticiilar mforence to its powerH uudt•r Art. 142 of the Constitu-tion.

Srnh• c. }.

For the determina.tiou of tho constitutional issue

raised in this case, it i• 110t necessary to go into the merits of the case against the petitioner. 1 t is only necessary to state tho following facts in order to appreciate the factual backgrouud of the ordi<r of the GovenH,r of Bombay aforesaid impugned in this co.se. The petitioner was Second in Comma.nd of I. N. S. Mysore, whioh ca.me lo Bombay in the beginning of

March 1959. On April 27, 1959, the petitioner was

arrested in connection vith charge of murder under s. 302 of the Indian Penll.l Code. He was produced before the Addit,ional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Greater Bombay, in connection with that charge. on April 28, 1959. The Magistrate remanded him to police custody on that day. On the following day (April 29, 1959) the Magistrate received letter from the Flag Officer, Bombay, to the effect that he was ready and willing to take the accused in naval custody as defined in s. 3(12) of the Navy Act, 1957, in which custody he would continue to be detained ·under the orders of the Na val Provost Marshall in exercise of his authority under s. 89(2) and (3) of the Navy .Act. Thereupon the Magistrate made the order directing that the accused should be detained in the Nav·al Jail and Detention Quarters in Born bay. The Magislmte has observed in his order that he had been moved under the instructions of the Government of India. The petitioner continued.to remain in naval custody all along. In due course, he was placed on trial b<·fore the Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. The trial was by jury. The jury returned verdict of 'not guilty' by majority of eight to one. The learned Sessions Judge ma.de reference to the High Court uHder s. 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code, disagreeing with the verdict of the jury; The reference, bdng Cr. Ref. No. 159 of 1959, was heard by Division . Bench of the Bombay High· Court. The High Court accepted the reference and convicted the petitioner under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, by its judgment and order dated March 11, 1960. On the same dav, the Governor of Bombay passed the following order":-

K. jYf, 1'la11avati v. The State of Bombay

Sinha C. J.

" In exercise of the powers conferred on me by Article 161 of the Constitution of India, I, Shri Pra. kasa, Governor of Bombay, am pleased hereby to suspend the sentence passed by the High Court of Bombay on Commander K. M. Nanavati in Sessions Case No. 22 of IV th Sessions of 1.959 un ti! the appeal intended to be filed by him in the Supreme Court against his conviction anct'Sentence is disposed of and

508 SCPRE:\IE COCRT REPORTS [1961)

subj<'ct m<;a.nwhile to the conditions that he shall Lo detained in the Naval Jail Custody in I. N. S. Kunjali ".

In pur8uance of the judgment of the High Court, writ iS!!ued to the Sessions Judge, Groater Bombay, communicating the order of the High Court convict-ing and sentencing the petitioner as aforesaid. The Sessions Judge issued a. warrant for t.he arrPst of tho accused and sent it to th<> police officer in charge of the Citv Sessions Court for Greater Bombay for exe-cution.· :rhe warrant was returned unse~ved with the report that the warrant could not be served in view oft he order set out above passed by the Governor of Bombay suspending the seutnnce up·Jn the petitio-ner. The Sessions Judge then returned the writ to-gethor with the uuexecuted warrant l'l the High Court.In the meantime an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was made soon after the judg-m(•.nt was pronounced by •the High Court a.nd the matter was fixed for hearing on :11arch 14, 1960. On that day the matter of the unexecutrcl warrant was pla,ced before the Division Bench_ which directed that, in view of the unusual and u.nprecodented situation ariaing out of the order of the Governor the matter should be reforred to a. Jargor Bench. Notice was accordingly issued to the State of Bombay and to the accused person. Special Bench of five Judges of that Court heard the matter. The Special Bench premitted two Advocates, Mr. Kotwa.l a.nd Mr. Pra.n-jpe, to appear on behalf of the Western India. Advo-ca.teo' Association. Similarly, Mr. Peerbhoy was also permitted to appear along with Mr. Latifi on behalf of the Bombay Bar Association. They were heard as amfru.s cu.riae in view of the fact tha,t the Advocate General for the State of Bombay and the counsel for accused wore both sailing in the same boat, tha.L is to 88.)', both of them were appearing to support the order made by the Governor. In view of tho great import-ance of the issues involved, the Court allowed those Advocates to represent the other ·view point. The Ad'.:ocale General of Bombay as also counsel for the

accused made objections to the Court hearing the Advocates aforesaid on the ground that they had no locus standi. The Advocate General of Bombay also Taised preliminary objection to the hearing of the matter by the Special Bench on the ground that it had no jurisdiction . to examine the validity of the action taken by the Governor, because there was no judicial proceeding then pending. The criminal reference aforesaid, to which the State and the accus-ed were parties, had already been disposed of and none of those parties had raised any grievance or objection to the order of the Governor impugned before the Court. The Court overruled that objection in view of the fact that the writ issued by the Court had been returned unexecuted on grounds which could be exa-mined-by the Court as to the validity of the reasons for the return of the warrant unexecuted. The High Court then examined the validity of the action taken by the Governor and came to the conclusion that it had the power to examine the extent of the Governor's power under Art, 161 of the Constitution and whether it had been validly exercised in the instant case. After an elaborate examination of the questions raised before it, the Special Bench came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Governor was not in-valid. It also held that the condition of the suspen-sion of the order that the petitioner .be detained in naval custody was also not unconstitutional, oven though the accused could not have been detained in Naval Jail under the provisions of the Navy Act, after he had been convicted by the High Court. The Court also held negativing the contention raised on behalf of the Advocates appearing as amicus curiae, that the order of the Governor did not affect the power of the Supreme Court with particular reference to r. 5 of 0. XXI of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which will be set out in full hereinafter. The reason for this conclusion, in the words of the High Court, is:-

" As the sentence passed upon the accused has been suspended, it is not necessary for the accused to surrender to his sentence. Order XXI, r. 5, of the

J(. }/f! lVa.navati

The State of Bon1b<!Y

Sinha C. ].

/(. ,\f_ ,VaJ1avati v.

5111/i(l c. J.

Supreme Court Rules will not, therefore, ltpply in this

case."

The High Court also overruled the plea of mala fides. In lhe result, tho High Court held that e.s the order roe.de by the Governor had not been shown to be unconstitutional or contrary to law, the warrant should not be reissued until the appeal to be filed in the Supreme Court ha.cl been disposed of, unless the order ma.de by the Govnnor stands cancelled or with-drawn before that event.

The petitioner filed his petition for specie.I leave in

this Court on April 20, 1960, and also mu.de e.n applica-tion on April 21, 1960, under 0. XLV, rr. 2 and 5 of the Supreme Court Rules for exemption from compliance with 0. XXI, r. 5, of those Rules. It was stated in the petition that, soon after his arrest, the peritioner throughout the trial before the Sessions Court and the . hearing of the reference in the High Court, had been in naval custody and continued to be in that custody, that he had been throughout of good behaviour and was ready and willing to obey any order of this Court., but that the petitioner " not being free man it was not possible for him to comply with the requirements of r. 5 of 0. XXI of the Supreme Court Rules ...... ". He, therefore, prayed that he may be exempted from compliance with the aforesaid rule and that his pet.i-tion for specie.I leave tu appeal be posted for hearing without his surrendering to his sentence. On April 25, 1960, the special leave petition e.hlllg with the applica-tion for exemption aforesaid was placed before Division Bench which pe.l!Sed the following order :-""This is petition for special leave against the order passed by the Bombay High Court on reforencP, convicting the petitioner under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. Afoug with hiR petition for special leave a.n application has been filed by the pet,itioner praying that he may be exempted from surrendering under 0. XXI, r. 5, of the Rules of this Court. His contention in this e.ppliration is that he is ready and willing to obey any order that this Court may pass but that as result of the order passed by the Governor of Bombay

under Art. 161 of the Constitution he is not free

man to do so and that is put forward by him as an important ground in support of his plea that he may be exempted from complying with the relevant rule of this Court. This plea immediately raises an important constitutional question about the scope and extent of the powers conferred on the Governor under Art. 161 of the Constitution and that is constitutional matter which has to be heard by Constitution Bench of this Court. We would accordingly direct that notice of this application should be served on the Attorney. General and the State of Bombay and the papers in this application should be placed before the learned Chief Justice to enable him to direct in due course, in consultation with. the parties concerned, when this applic~tion should be placed for hearing before the Constitution. Bench ".

K. A-1. Nanavati

The State of Bombay

Sinha C. ].

After the aforesaid order of this Court, it appears that on July 6, the petitioner swore an affidavit in Bombay to the effect that his application aforesaid for exemption from compliance with the requirements of r. 5 of 0. XXI of the Rules had been made under misapprehension of the legal position and that the true position bad been indicated in the judgment of the Special Bench of the Bombay High Court to the effect that r .. 5 of 0. XXI of the Rules would not apply to his case in view of the Governor's order aforesaid and that, therefore, his special leave petition be directed to be listed for admission. It is apparent that this change in the petitioner's position as regards the necessity for surrender is clearly an a1'terthought._ Certainly, it came after the Division Bench had direct-ed the constitutional matter to be heard as prelimi-nary question.That is how the matter has come before us. Before we heard the learned Advocate General of Bombay, and the learned Additional Solicitor-General on behalf of the Union of India, we enquired of Shri J. B. Dadachanji; Advocate for the petitioner, whether the petitioner was prepared to get himself released from the Governor's order in order to present himself in this

/(, lv/. ,\'<111atati v. The State of 11aii;ba ;·

Si11'1a C. ].

Court so that t.he hearing of his special leave petition might proceed in the ordinary course,. but ho was not in position to make categorical answer and preferr-ed to have the constitutional question determined on its merits. We had the assistance of l\fr. C. B. Aggar-waln, who very properly volunteered his services as amicus curiae to rnpresent the other ·view point. In this Court also the sit'uation was the same as iu the High Court, uamely, that unless there was an amicus curiae to represent the opposite view point, the parties represented before u~ were not contesting the validity of the Governbr's order. Both here and in the High Court, it was at the instance of the Court itself that the matter has been placed for hearing on the preli-minary question before dealing witb the meritR of the petitioner's ci;,se.

The learned Advocate General of Bombay has argu-ed with his usual vehemence and clarity of expression that the power of pardon, including the lesser power of remission and suspension of sentence etc. is of plenary character and is unfettt>red; that it is to be exercised not as matter of course, but in special cir-cumstances requiring the interventio11 of the Head of the Executive; that tho pow!'r could be exercised at any time aftrr the commission of an offence; that .. tLis power being in tho nature of exercise of sovert>ign power is vested in the Head of the State and has, in some respects, been modified by statute; that the power of pardon may be exercis!'d uncouditionally or subject to certain conditions to be imposed by tho authority exerciRing the power; that such conditions should not b•3 iHegal or impossible of performance or against public policy. 1t was further argu!'d that the power of pardon is vested in the Head of tho State as an index of sovereign authority irrespective of the form of Govemment. Thus the President of the Uni-ted States of America and Governors of States, besides, in some cases Committees, ho.vo been vested with thoso powers, which cannot be derogated from h)' Legisla-ture. So far as India is concerned, before the Consti-tution ca.me into effect such powers have been regula-ted by statu!A', of course, subject to the power of the

Crown itself. After the Constitution, the power is contained in Art. 72 in respect[0]of the President, and Art. 161 in respect of the Governor of State. Arti-cles 72 and 161 are without any words of limitation, unlike the power of the Slipreme Court contained in Arts. 136, 142, 145 and other Articles of the Constitu-tion. Hence, what was. once prerogative of the· Crown has now crystallized into the common law of England and statute in India, for example, s. 401.· of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or Arts. 72 and 161 of the Constitution. He particularly emphasised tba,t the two powers, namely, the power of the Executive j,o grant pardon, iri its comprehensive sense, and of the Judiciary are completely apart and separate and there cannot be any question of conflict between th<'m; because they are essentially different, the one from :,h., other. The power of pardon is essentially an executiva action. It is exercised in aid of justice and not in defi. ance of it. With reference to the particular question, now before us, namely, how far the exercise of the exe-culive power of pardon contained in those two Articles of the. Constitution can be said to impinge on the judicial functions of this Court, it was argued that r. 5 of 0. XX! of the Rules of this Cour.t postulates the existence of sentence of imprisonment and, as in . this case, as result of the Governor's order, there is no such selltence r.unning there could not be any ques-tion· of the one trespassing into the field of the . other. Rule 5 aforesaid.· of.•. this Court represents the · well. settled practice of this Court, as ()f other Courts, that .a person convicted and sentenced tq .. term of im pri-sonment should uot be permitted· to be fo: cqntempt of the order of this Court, tha\ is to say, shoold:··not be permitted to move the appellate court without":SUr, !endering to the sentence. But the petitioner i~ nbt m such contempt, because r. 5 did not apply to him. The order of sentence ag~in,,t him having been sus-pu1.ded, he is not disobeying any rule or process of th is Court or of the High Court. The power of the Supreme Court to make rulec :s subject to two limita-. tions, namely, (I) to any law made by Parliament_ and (2) t.hu approval of the President. On the other hand,

K. M. Nanavali

v. The Stal• of Bombay

Sinha C, j.

K. M. /\[1]anauati v. TM State of Rombaj• Sinha C. ] .

Arts. 72 a.nd 161 enshrine tho plena.ry powers of the sovereign State to gra.nt pa.rdon etc., a.nd are not sub-ject to any limitations. There could, therefore, be no conflict between these two, and if there were any con-flict a.t a.II, the limited powers of the Court must yield to the unlimited powers of the Executive. As regards the condition imposed by the Governor, subject. to which the sentence pa.ssed against the petitioner ha.d been suspended, the condition was not illegal, because it did not offend against any peremptory or mandatory provisions of law. It is not the same thing to say that the condition was not authorised by law as to say that the condition was illegal, in the sense that it did what was forbidden by law. We were referred to the various prnvisions of the Indian Navy Act (Act LXII of 1957) to show that there were no provisions which could be said to have been contravened by the condition attached to the order of suspension by the Governor. Furthermore, the naval custody in which the petitioner continues ha.d been submitted to by tho petitioner and what has been consented to cannot be illegal, though it may not have been authorised by law. Lastly, it was contended that the observation of the High Court in the last paragraph of its judg-ment was entirely uncalled for, because once it is held, · as wa.s held by tho High Court, that the Governor's order wa.s not unconstitutional, it was not open to the High Court to ma.ke observations which would suggest that the Governor had exercised his power impro-perly. If the exercise of the power by the Governor is not subject to any conditions, and is not justiciable, it wa.s not within tho power of the High Court even to suggest that the Governor should not have passed the order in queBtion. The lea.med Additional Solici-tor General adopted the able arguments of the Ad vo-cate General and added that, in terms, there was no conflict between Arts. 142 and 161 of the Constitution. Mr. C. B. Aggarwala, to whom the Court is obliged for his able asAistancc to tho Court, argued that the exercise of the rule ma.king power by the Supreme Court is not mere statutory power, but is constitu-tional privilege; that the Supreme Court alone could

lay down rules and conditions in accordance with which applications for special leave to appeal to the Court could be entertained ; that the material rule governing the present case was made under the cons-titutional power of the Supreme Court under Art. 145 and that the Advocate-General was in error in descri-bing it as subordinate legislation; that the fact that the rules ·ma.de• by this Court under Art. 145 of the Constitution require the approv!tl of the President cannot convert them into rules made under law enacted in pursuance of power conferred, ·either by Art. 123 or Art. 245 of the Constitution; that the underlying idea behind r. 5 of 0. XXI of the Rules of this Court is to see that the petitioner to this Court or the appellant should remain under the directions of the Court ; that the Governor by passing the order in question has deprived the Supreme Court of its power in respect of the custody of the convicted person; that the power under Art. 161 has to be exercised within the limits laid down by Art. 154 of the Constitution. It was also argued that the petitioner could have got his relief from this Court itself when he put in his application for special leave and that in such situa-tion the Executive should not have intervened. In other words, the contention was that, like the Courts of Equity, which intervened in aid of ·justice when law was of no avail to the litigant, the Executive also should exercise their power only where the courts have not been clothed with am pie power to grant adequate relief in the particular circumstances governing the case. It was further argued that on true construction of the provisions of the law and ·the Constitution, it -would appear that the Governor's power extends only up to stage and no more, that is to say, the Governor could suspend the operation of the sentence only until the Supreme Court was moved by way of special leave and then it was for the Court to grant or to refuse bail to the petitioner. Once the Court has passed an ordei:_ in that respect, the Governor could not intervene so as to interfere with the orders of the Court. Alterna-tively, it was argued that, even assuming that an order of suspension in terms made by the Governor,

K. M. Nanavati

The State of Bombay

Sinha C. ].

K. At: Nanat·ati v. The ~tale aj 80111bay Si•ha C. j.

516 S"CPRE~lE COURT nEPORTS [1961)

could at a.II be passed during tho pondency of the applicatiqn for leave to appeal to this Court, such an ordor could be passed only by the President, a.nd not by the Governor. ln any view of the matter, it was further argued, the Governor could pass an order con-templated by Art. 161, but could not add condition, as he did in tho present case, which was an illegal condition. It was further argued that the generality of the expressions used in s. 401 of the Criminal Pro-cedure Codo has to be cut down by the specific provi-sions of s. 426 of that Code. In other words, when there is au _appeal pending or is intended to be pre-ferred, during that limited prriod, the trial court itself or the appellate court, has to exercise its judicial function in the matter of granting bail etc.; and the a.ppropria.t-0 Government is to stay its hands during that time.Before dealing with the ma.in question a.s to what is the scope of the power conferred upon the Guvernor by Art. 161 of the Constitution, it will bo convenient to roview in a. genera.I way the law of pardon in the background of which the controversy has to be determined. Pardon is one of the many prerogatives which have boon recognised since time immemorial as being vested in the Hovoreign, wherever the sovere-ignty might lio. Whether the sovereign happened to be a.n absolute monarch or a. popular republic or a. constitutional king or qneen, sovereignty has always hL>en associated with tho source of power-tho power to appoint or diRmiss public servants,. tho power to declaro war aud conclude peace, the power to legislate and the power to adjudicate upon a.II kinds of dis-putes. Tho King, using the term in most compre-hensive sense, has been the symbol pf the sovereignty oft.he State from whom oma.na.te all power, authority and jurisdictionH. As kingship was supposed to ho of divine origin, nn absolute king had no difficulty in proclaiming and enforcing his divine right to goYern, which includes the right to rule, to administer and to dispense justice. It is a. historioa.l fa.ct that it was this claim of divine right of kings that brought the Stuart Kings of England in conflict with Parliament a.a the

spokesman of the people. We know that as result of this struggle between the King, as embodiment of K. M. Nanavati absolute power in all respects, and Parliament, as the v. champion of popular liberty, uJt.imately emerged the The State of constitutional head of the Government in the person Bonibay of the King who, in theory, wields all the power, but, in practice, laws are enacted by Parliament, the exe-Sinha C. ]. cutive power vests in members .of the Government, collectively called th'e Cabinet, and judicial power is vested in Judiciary appointed by the Government in the name of His Majesty. Thus, in theory, His Majesty or Her Majesty continues to appoint the Judges of the higest courts, the members of the Government and· the public ;.;13rvants, who hold office during the pleasure of the sovereign. As result of historical processes emerged clear cut division of governmental functions into executive, legislative and judicial. Thus was established the " Rule of ·Law" which has been t.he pride of Great Britain and which was highlighted by Prof. Dicey. The Rule of Law, in contradistinction to the rule of man, includes with-in its wide connotation the absence of arbitrary power, submission to the ordinary law of the land, and the equal protection of the laws. As result of the historical process aforesaid, the absolute and arbitrary power of the monarch came to be canalised into three distinct wings of the Government. There has been progressive increase in the power, authority and jurisdiction of the three wings of the Government and corresponding diminution of absolute and arbit-rary power of the King. It may, therefore, be said that the prerogatives of the Crown in England, which were wide and varied, have been progressively cur-tailed with corresponding increase in the power, authority and jurisdiction of the three wings of Government, so much so that most of the prerogatives of the Crown, though in theory they have continued to be vested in it, are now exercised in his name by the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. This dispersal of the Sovereign's absolute power amongst the three wings of Government has now

become the norm of division of power; a.nd the prero-ga.tivo is no greater than what the la.wallows. In the celebrated decision of the House of Lords the House of Lords of Lords Lords in· the case the case of Attorney General v. De Keyser's Royal llotel, Limi-ted (')which involved the right of the Crown by virtue involved the right of the Crown by virtue of its prerogative, to take possesHion of private pro-perty for administrative purposes in connection with the defence of the realm, it was held by the House of Lords that the Crown was not eiltitled by virtue of its prerogative or under any statute, to take possession of prnperty belonging to citizen for the purposes a.fore. said, without paying compensation for use a.nd occu-pation.

K. M. Non•v•li celebrated decision of the House of Lords the House of Lords of Lords Lords in· the case the case v. The si.1, of of Attorney General v. De Keyser's Royal llotel, Limi-Bo>nb•y ted (')which involved the right of the Crown by virtue involved the right of the Crown by virtue

. Sinha C. J.

It wa.s argued by Sir John Simon,'K. C., for the res. pond en ts that:-

" The preroga.ti ve ha.s been defined by learned

author as •the residue of discretionary or a~bitra.ry authority which at a.ny given time is legally lt>ft in the hands of the Crown'. lt is tho ultimate resource of the executive, and when there exists statutory provision covering precisely the same ground there is no longer any room for the exercise of the Roya.I Pre-rogative. lt ha.s been ta.ken a.way by necessary impli-cation because the two rights cannot live together''. (See p. 518 of the Report).

This argument on behalf of the respondents appears to have been accepted by Lord Dunedin, who deliver-ed the lea.ding opinion of the House in these terms :-

"The prerogative is defined by a. learned consti-tutionR.l writer as •the residue of discretionary or arbitrary authority which at any given time is legally left in the hands of the Crown '. Inasmuch as the Crown is a. party to every Act of Parliament it is logical enough to consider that when the Act deals with something which before tho Act could be effected by tho prerogative, and specially empowers the Crown to do the same thing, but subject to conditions, the Crown assents to that., and by that Act, to the prero. gative being curtailed". (See p. 526 of the Heport). This position has been recognised in Halsbury's Laws (1) (t9>o] A.C. ,108.

of England, Volume 7, Third Edition, at p. 221, in these words:-·

K. M. N«,navati v. The siate of · Bombay Sink~. C. ].

"The prerogative is thus created and limited by the common law, and the Sovereign can claim no prerogatives except such as the law allows, nor such as are contrary to Magna Carta, or any <'ther statute, . or to the liberties of the subject.

The courts have jurisdiction, therefore, to inquire into the existence or extent of any alleged prero-" ' ga t 1ve............. . [. ].

We have thus briefly set out the history of the genesis and development of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy because Mr. Seervai has strongly emphasised that the Royal Prerogative of Mercy is wide· and absolute, and can be exercised at any time. Very elaborate arguments were addressed by him before us on this aspect of the matter and several .English and American decisions were cited. In so far as his argu-ment was that the power to suspend the sentence is part of the larger power of granting pardon it may be relevant to consider incidentally the scope and extent of the' said larger power; but, as we shall presently point out, the controversy raised by the present petition lies within very narrow compass; and so concentration on the wide and absolute character of the power to graqt pardon and over-emphasis on judicial decisions which deal directly with the said question would not be very helpful for our present. purpo~e. In fact we apprehend that entering into an elaborate discussion about the scope and effect of the said larger power, in the light of relevant judicial decisions, is likely to create confusion and to distract attention from the essential features of the very narrow point that falls to be considered in bhe present case. That is why we do not propose to enter into discussion of the . said topic or to refer to the several decisions cited under that topic.

Let us now turn to· the law on the subject as it obtains in India since the Code of Criminal Procedure was enacted ln 1898. Section 401 of the Code gives power to the executive to suspend the execution of 67

[ 1961 J

the sentfmce or remit the whole or e.ny pa.rt of thB

K. M. Nana11ali punishment without conditionH ·or upon e.ny conditions v. which the person sentenced e.ccepts. Section 402 giveA Tise SttTtt of power to the executive without the consent of the per-Bombay son sentenced to commute a. sentence of dee.th into imprisonmert for life e.nd e.lso other sentences into Sinha C. j. sentences less rigorous in nature. In e.ddition the Governor-Genera.I had been delege.ted the power to exercise the prerogative power vesting in His Ma.jesty. Sub-section (5) of s. 401 a.lso provides that nothing contained in it sha.11 be deemed to interfere with the right of His Ma.jesty, or the Governor.Genera.I when such right is delegated to him, to gra.nt pa.rdons, rep-rieves, respites or remissions of punishment. This position continued till the Constitution ca.me into force. Two provisions were introduced in the Constitution to cover the former roya.I prerogative relating to pardon, e.nd they a.re Arts. 72 e.nd 161. Article 72 dee.ls with the power of the President to grant pardons, reprieveA, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of a.ny person convic-ted of any offence. Article 161 gives simila.r power U> the Governor of a. Sta.te with respect to offences a.gs.inst a.ny la.w relating to a. matter to which the executive power of the State extends. Sections 40 I a.nd 402 of the Code ha.ve continued with necessary modifica.tions to bring them into line with Arts. 72 and 161. It will be seen, however, that Arts. 72 a.nd 161 not only dea.I with pa.rdons and reprieves which were within the roya.l preroga.t.ive but ha.ve also included what iA pro-vided in ss. 401 e.nd 402 of the Code. Besides the genera.I power, there is a.lso provision in ss. 337 a.nd 338 of the Code to tender pa.rdon to a.n e.ccomplice under certs.in conditions. .In this ca.so we are primarily concerned with the extent of the power of pardon vested in the State so fa.r a.s the Governor is concerned by Art. 161 of 'the Constitution. Article 161 is in these terms:-

"The Governor of a. Sta.te sha.11 ha.ve the power to gra.nt pa.rdons, reprieves, reapites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sen-tence of a.ny person oonvioted of a.ny offence a.gs.inst

any law relating to matter to which tho executive power of the State extends."

1ybo

J{. ,11 • • \' aitavati v, Bombay

Though Art. 161 does not make any reference to Art. 72 of the Constitution, the power of the Governor of State to grant pardon etc. to some extent overlaps the same power of the President, particularly, in the case of sentence of death. Articles 72 and 161 are in very general terms. It is, therefore, argued that .they are not subject to any limitations and the res-pective area of exercise of power under these two Articles i8 indicated separately in respect of the Presi-dent and of the Governor of 8tate. It iH further argued that the exercise of power under. these two Articles is not fettered by the provisions of Arts., 142 and 145 bf the ·Constitution or by any other law. Article 142(1) is in these terms:-

Siu/ta C. ].

"The Supreme Court in the exercise of its juri~­diction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree ~o passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of'India in such manner as may be prescribed. by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe."

It will be seen that it consists of two parts. The first part gives power to this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to pass such decree or make ,such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The second part deals with the enforcement of the order passed by this Court. Article 145 gives power to this Court with the apvroval of the President to make rules for regu-lating generally the practice and procedure of the Court. It is obvious that the rules made .under Art. 145 are in aid of the power given to this Court under Art. 142 to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. Rule 5 of 0. XXI of the ]:{ules of this Court was framed under Art. 145 and is in these terms:--

" Where the petitioner has been sentenced to

v. Tlie Statt of llomf)(~ y

term of impris<rnment, tho petition shall sltt.te whether

the petitioner has surrendered. Unless the Court otherwise orders, t.he petition shall not be posted for hearing unt.il the petitioner has surrendered to his sentence."

Unless the Court

This rule waR, in term", introduct•d into the Supreme Court llules last year and it only crystallized the pre-existing practicti of this Court, which is also the prac-tice in the High Courts. That practice is based on the very sound principle which was recognised long ago by tho Full Bench of the High Court of .Judica-ture, !'\orth \Vt,stern Provinces, in 1870, iu the case of The Queen v. Bisheshar Pershad ('). In that caso no ordPr of conviction had been passed. Only warrant had been issued against the accused and as the war-rant had been returned unserved proclamation had been issued and attachment of the property of tho accused had been ordered, with view to compelling him t.o surrender. The validity of the warrnnL had been elmllt·nged before the High ·court. The High Court refused to entntain his petition until he had sunen-dered because he was deemed to he in contempt. of lawfully constituted authority. Tbe accused person iu pursuance of t.he order of t.he High Court surren-dered and after he bad surrendered, the mattt>r was dealt with by tJw High Court on its merits. But as observed aho\'C the Rules framed uuder Art .. 145 are 011ly in aid of the powers of this Court under Art. 142 and the main question that fallR for considt>ration is, whethtlr the order of suspension passed by the Gover-nor under Art. Hi! could operate when this Court had be!'ll mon•d for granting Hpecial leaYe to appP-al from the judgment and order of the High Court. A; soon as the µctitioner put in petition for spt>cia.l leave to appeal t.he mattt>r became sub judice i11 this Court. This Court under its Rules could insist upon the petitioner surrendering tc• his sentence as condition precedent to his being heard by this Court, though this Court could dispense with and in proper case could exempt him from the operation of that rule. It ioi not disput-ed that this Court has the power to stay the execu-tion of the sentence and to grant bail pending tho (1) Vol. :z, :t-i.\.\'.P. High Court Heports, p. 441.

disposal of the application for special leave to appeal. Rule 28 of 0. XXI of the Hules does not cover that period, but even so the power of the Court under Art. 142 of the Constitution to make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in this case was not disputed and it would be open to this Court even while an application for special leave is pending to grant bail under the powots it has under Art .. 142 to pass any order in any matter which is necessary for doing complete justice.

](. 111. ,Va11avati v.

The State of Bonibay

Sinha C. j.

But it has been argued that, even as the terms of Art. 161 are without auy limitation, the provisions of s. 401 of tbe Code of Criminal Procedure are also in simllarly wide terms, and do not admit of any limita. tions or fetters on the power of the Governor ; the Governor could, therefore, suspend the execution of the sentence passed by the High Court even during the period that the matter was pending in this Court. In other words, the same power of dealing with the matter of suspension of sentence is vested both in this Court as also in the Governor.This immediately raises the question of the extent of the power under s. 401 of the Code with respect to suspension as compared with the powers of the Court . under s. 426, which enables the Court pending appeal to suspend the sentence or lo release the appellant ou bail. It will be seen from the language of s. 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure c.lealing with the power of the appellate court that, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the court may order that the execution of . the senteuce be suspended or that if the accused is in confinement he mav be released on bail or on his own bond. Section 40( occurs in Chapter XXIX, headed "Of suspensions, remissions and commutatious of sentences". This Chapter, therefore, docs not deal with all the powers vested in the Governor under Art. 161 of the Constitution, but only with some of them. Section 426 is in Chapter XXXI, headed as "Uf appeal, reference and revision". Section 426, there-fore, deals specifically with situation in which an a.ppeal is pending and the appellate court has seisin of the case and is thus entitled to pass such orders as

[(. 111. 1Vanavati v. The State of Bombay Sinha C. ].

524 SUPREME COURT REPOH,TS [1961]

it thinks fit and proper to suspend sentence. It will thus be seen that whereas Chapter XXIX, in which s. 401 occurs, deals with situation in which pen-d ency of an appeal is not en visaged, s. 426 deals with situation in which pendency of an appeal is postulat. ed. In other words, Chapter XXIX deals with persons sentenced to punishment for an offence simpliciter in general terms, whereas s. 426 deals with special case and therefore must be out of the operation of s. 401. But it has been vehemently argued by the learned Advocate General that the words "at any time" indicate that the power conferred by s. 401 may ·be exercised without any limitation of time. In the con-text of s. 401 "any time" can only mean after con. vict.ion. It cannot mean before conviction, because there cannot be any sentence before conviction. The question then is : " Does it cover the entire period after the order of conviction and sentence even when an appeal is pending in the appellate court and s. 426 can be availed of by the appellant?"

It will be seen that s. 426 is as unfettered by other provisions of the Code as s. 40 l with this difference that powers under s. 426 cau only be exercised by an appellate court pending 11n appeal. When both the prnvisions are thus unfettered, they have to be harmonised so that there may be no conflict between them. They can be harmonised without-any difficulty, ifs. 426 is held to deal with special case restricted to the period while the appeal is pending before an appellate court w hilc s. 401 deals with the remainder of the period after conviction. We see no difficulty in adopting this interpretation nor is there any diminu-tion of powers conferred on the executive bys. 401 by this interpretation. The words "at any time " emphasise that the power under s. 401 can be exercis-ed without limit of time, but they do not necessarily lead to the inference that this power can also be exercised while the conrt is seized of the same matter under s. 426.

Turning now to Arts. 142 and 161, the argument of Mr. Seervai is that though this Court has the power to suspend sentence or grant bail pending hea1)ug of the

special lea \'e petition, that would not affect the power of the executive to grant pardon, using the term in its comprehensive sense, as indicated above. Reference was in this connection made to Balmukand and others v. The King Emperor ([1]). That was case where convicted person had moved His Majesty in Council for special leave to appeal and the question arose as to the power of the executive to suspend the sentence. In that connection Lord Haldane, L. C., made the· following observations :-

](. J\1. l\'anavali v.

The State of Bombay

Sinha C. } .

"With regard to staying execution of the sentence of death, their Lordships are unable to interfere. As they have ofteri said, this Board is not Court of Criminal Appeal. The tendering of advice to His Majesty as to the exercise of his prerogative of pardon is matter for the Executive Government and is out-side their Lordships' province. It is, of course, open to the petitioners' advisers to notify the·· Government of India that an appeal to .this Board is pending. The Government of India will no doubt give due weight to the fact and consider the circumstances. But their Lordships do not think it right to express any opinion as to whether the sentence ought to be suspend-ed".

These observations were made because the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, unlike the Supreme Court, was not Court of criminal appeal and there-fore the question of suspending the operation of the sentence of death was not within their judicial purview. The granting of special leave by the Privy Council was an example of the residuary power of the Sovereign to exercise his judicial functions b_v way of his prerogative and therefore the petitioner was left free in that case to approach. the Gover!rment of India, as the delegate. of the Sovereign, to exercise the pre-rogative power in view of the circumstance that an appeal to the Privy Council was intended. The foot-note to the Report also contains the following: " The petitioners were reprieved by the Govern-ment of India pending the hearing of the petition for leave to appeal". (see p.134).

(1) (1915) 42 LA. 133.

Sinha C. _/.

It is noteworthy that the reprieve granted in that case covered only the period until the grant or refusal of the petition for leave to a.ppca.l and did not go further so as to eover the period of pendency of the appeal to the Privy Council, unlike t.hc order now impugned in this case. The power which was vested in the Crown to grant special leave to appeal to con-victed persons from India has now been conferred on this Court under Art. 136. The power under Art. 136 can be exercised in respect of " any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or ma.de by any court or tribunal in the territory of India''. This wide and compre-hensive power in respect of any ,.determination by any court or tribunal must carry with it t.be power to pass orders incidental or ancillary to the exercise of that power. Hence thu wide powers given to this Court under Art. 142 "to make such order as is neces-sary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it". As already indicated, ,the power of this Court to pass an order of suspension of sen-tence or to grant bail pending the disposal of the app-lication for special leave to appeal has not been dis-puttid and could not have been disputed keeping in view the vory wide terms in which Art. 142 is worded. When Ml application for special leave to appeal from judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by High Court is rnadr, this Court has been il!suing orders of interim bail pending the hearing and disposal of the application for special leave as also during the pendency of the appeal to this Court after special leave has been granted. So if i\lr. Seervai's argument. is correct that the pende.ncy of special leave application iu this Court makes no difference to the exercise of the power by the executive under Art. 161, then both the judiciary and the executive have to function in the same tield at the same time. lllr. Seerva.i however contended that there could never ho conflict hetwecn the exercise of the power by the Governor 4nder Art. 161 and by this Court under Art. 142 becauHe the power under Art. 161 is executive power and tl l power under Art. 142 is judicial powerand the two do not act in the same field. That in our opinion is over-simplification of the matter. It is true th t th power un er r . t 161 1s [. ]exercise . y th exe-cutive while the power under· Art. 142 is that of the judiciary; but merely because one power is executive and the othe~ is judicial, it does not follow that they can never be exercised in the same field. The field in which the power is exercised does not depend upon the authority exercising the power but upon the sub-ject-matter. What is the power which is being exer-cised in this case ? The power is being exercised by the executive to suspend the sentence; that power can be exercised by this Court under Art. 142. The field in which the power is being exercised is also the same, namely, the suspension of the sentence passed upon convicted person. It is significant that the Governor's power has been exercised in the present case by reference to the appeal which the petitioner intended to file in this Court. There can therefore be no doubt that the judicial power under Art. 142 and the Executive power under Art. 161 can within cer-tain narrow limits be exercised in the same field. The question that immediately arises is one of harmonious construction of two provisions of the Constitution, as one is not made subject to the other by specific words in the Constitution itself. As already pointed out, Art. 161 contains no words of limitation; in the same way, Art. 142 contains no words of limitation and in the fields cover.ed by them they are unfettered. But if there is any field which is common to both, the principle of harmonious construction will have to be adopted in order. to avoid conflict between "the two powers. It will be seen that the ambit of Art. 161 is very much wider and it is only in very narrow field that the power contained in Art. 161 is also contained in Art. 142, namely, the power of suspension of sen-tence during the period when the matter is sub-judice in this Court. Therefore on the principle of harmoni-ous construction and to avoid conflict between the two powers it must be held that Art. 161 does not deal with the suspension of sentence during the time that 68

K. M. Nanavati

The ;;ate of Bombay

Sinha c. J.

Art. 142 is in operation and the matter is sub-judice

. in this Court.

r96o K M-;; · · The s;~,, of Bombay

In this connection it is well to contrast the langu-age of s. 209(3) a.nd s. 295(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935. Section 209(3) gave power to the Federal Court to order stay of execution in any case under appeal to the Court, pending the hearing of the appeal. Section 295(2) provided that nothing in this Act shall derogate from the right of His Majesty, or of the Governor General if any such right is delegated to him by His Majesty, to grant pardons, reprieves, res-pites or remissions of punishments. It may have been possible to argue on the language of s. 295(2) that the prerogative exercised by His Majesty transcended the power of the Federal Court under s. 209(3); but when we compare the language of Arts. 72 and 161 with the language of s. 295(2) of the Government of India Act, we find no words like " Nothing in this Constitu-tion" or "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution " in them. Such words have been used in many articles of the Constitution: (See for example, Art. 262(2) which provides specifically for taking away by Parliament by law the power of this Court in disputes relating to water and begins with words" Notwithstanding anything in this Constitu-tion "). The absence therefore of any such qualifying words in Art. 161 makes the power of this Court under Art. 142 of the same wide amplitude within its sphere as the power conferred on the Governor under Art. 161. Therefore if there is any field where the two powers can be exercised simultaneously the principle of har-monious construction bas to be resorted to in order that there may not be any conflict between them. On that principle the power under Art. 142 which ope-rates in very small part of the field in which the power under Art. 161 operates, namely, the suspension and execution of sentence during the period when any matter is sub-judice in this Court, must be held not to be included in the wider power conferred under

anavati

Sinha c. f.

Art. 161.

In this connection Mr. Seervai drew our attention

to the power of nolle prosequi. It may be mentioned

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

that that power is not analogous to the power of par-don though its exercise may result in case in court coming to an end. Simirar powers are contained in ss. 333 and 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The fact that the Advocate General in the one case and the Public Prosecutor in the other can bring pro-secution to an end has in our opinion no bearing on the question raised in the present case. In any case action under s. 333 of the Code results in discharge only and may leave it open, for example, to private party to bring complaint in the . proper court unless the presiding judge directs that the discharge shall · amount to an acquittal. Under s. 494 the withdra-wal of case can only take place with the consent of the Court. In any case these proceedings being not in the nature of pardon or suspension or remission or commutation of sentence have no bearing on the question before us. __ In the present case, the question is limited to the exercise by the Governor of his powers under Art. 161 of the Constitution suspending the sentence during the pendency of the special leave petition and the appeal to this Court; and the controversy has narrow-ed down to whether for the period when this Court is in seizin of the case the Governor could pass the im-pugned order, having the effect of suspending the sen-tence during that period. There can be no doubt that it is open to the Govemor to grant full pardon at any time even during the pendency of the case in this Court in exercise of what is ordinarily called" mercy jurisdiction ''. Such pardon after the accused person has been convicted by the Court has the effect of completely absolving him from all punishment or dis-qualification attaching to conviction for criminal offence. That power is essentially vested in the head of the Executive, because the judiciary has no such 'mercy jurisdiction '. But the suspension of tho sen-tence for the period when this Court is in seizin of the case could have been granted by this Court itself. If in respect of the same period the Governor also has power to suspend the sentence, it would mean that both the judiciary and the executive would be

K. M. Nanavati

The Stale of Bonibay

Sinha C. ].

K. M. Natiavali v. Tica Statr of Boniba_y~ Sinlta C. ] .

functioning in the samt1 field at the same time lee.ding to the possibility of conflict of jurisdiction. Such coll-flict was not and could not have been intended by the makers of the Constitution. But it was contended by Mr. Seervai that the words of the Constitution, namely, Art. 161 do not warrant the conclusion that the power was in any way limited or fettered. In our opinion there is fallacy in the argument in so far as it postu. !ates what has to be established, namely, that CT10 Governor's power we.8 absolute and not, fettered in any we.y. So long as the judiciary has the power to pass-a particular order in pending case to that extent the power of the Executive is limited in view of the woras either of 88. 401 and 426 of the Code of Criminal Pro-cedure and Arts. 142 and 161 0£ the Constitution. If that is the correct intepretation to be put on these pro-visions in order to harmonise them it would follow that what is covored in Art. 142 is not covered _by Art. 161 and similarly what is covered by s. 426 is not covered by s. 401. On that interpretation :\fr. Seerv!Li would be right in his contention that there is no con: fliet between the prerogative power of .the sovereign state to grant pardon and the power of tho courts to dee.I with ponding case judicially. · ··

In this connection it may be relevant to deal with · another argument urged by Mr. Seervai in respect of the rule framed bv this Court under 0. 21, r. 5. He contended that Art. 145 under which rules have been framed by this Court is in terms subject to the provi-sions of any law me.de by Parliament, and he also emphasised the fact that before the rules can com·e into force they have to obtain the approval of the President. In other words, the argument is that the rule-making vower of this Court is no more than sub-ordinate legislation, and so if there is conflict bet-ween 0. 21, r. 5 and Art. 161 the rule must yield t-0 the powers conferred on the Governor by Art. 161. This argument overlooks the fact that in substance and effect the conflict is not between the said rule and Art. 161 but between tho wide powers conferred on this Court by Art. 142 and similar wide powers con-ferred on the Governor undor Art. 161. It would,therefore, be fallacious to suggest that compliance with the rule would become unnecessary because K. M. Nanavati higher power under Art. 161 has been exercised by v. the Governor, and so in ~he fac~L the· order, passed The State of by the Governor there 1s no longe_r _l!-ny need to com-Bombay ply with the rule. We have already referred to the genesis of this rule and _w.!e.-have pointed out that Sinha c. J; though the rule may have been framed under Art. 145 the source of the power of this Court to grant bail or to suspend sentence pending hearing of any criminal matter before it is not the saidrule nor Art. 145 but Art. 142; that being so, what Fe have to dec_ide in the present case is whether having regard to the width 'and amplitude of the powers conferred on this Court and the Governor by Arts. 142lrnd 161 respec-tively it would not be reasonable and J~.~per to har-monise the said two articles in such way as to avoid any conflict between the said two powers. In the decision of this question the legal chara~r of the rules that may be framed under Art. 145 cannot have any niaterial bearing.

In this connection it would be relevant to consider what would be the logical consequence if Mr. Seervai's argument is accepted. . In the present case the. Governor's order has been passed even before the petitioner's application for special leave came to be heard by this Court ; indeed it was passed before the said application was filed and the reason forpassing the order is stated to be that tho petitioner intended to file an appeal before this Court. Let us, however, take case wliere an application for special leave has been filed in this Court, and. on motion made by the petitioner the Court has directed him to be released on bail .on executing personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and on furnishing two sureties of like amount. According to Mr. Seervai, even if such an order is passed by this Court in criminal mittter pending before it, it would be open to the .Petitioner to move the Governor for suspension ·of 41§._.sentence pending the hearing of his application and ·appeal before this Court and the Governor may, in proper case, uncon-ditionally suspend the sentence. In other words, Mr.

r96o Seervai frankly conceded that, even in pending • . criminal matter before this Court, an order passed by · M. ~anavati this Court may in effect be set aside by the Governor The State of by ordering an unconditional suspension of the sen. Bombay tence imposed on the petitioner concerned. This illustration clearly brings out the nature of the contro-Sinha c. J. versy which we are called upon to decide in this case. If Mr. Seervai's argument is accepted it would inevit-ably mean that by exercising his power under Art. 161 the Governor can effectively interfere with an order passed in the same matter by this Court in exercise of its powers under Art. 142. It is obvious that the field on which both the powers are operating is exactly the same. Should the sentence passed against an accused person be suspended during the hearing of an appeal on the ground that a.n appeal is pending? That is the question raised both before this Court and before the Governor. In such case it would be idle to suggest that the field on which the power of the Governor under Art. 161 can be exercised is different from the field on which the power of this Court can be exercised under Art. 1'12. The fact that the powers invoked are different in character, one judicial and the other executive, would not change the nature of the field or affect its identity. We have given our anxious consideration to the problem raised for our decision in the present case and we feel no ·hesitation in taking the view that any possible con. flict in exercise of the said two powers can be reason-ably and properly voided by adopting harmonious rule of construction. :Avoidance of such possible conflict will incidentally prevent any invasion of the rule of law w bi ch is the very foundation of our Con-stitution.

It has been strenuously urged before us that the power of granting pardon is wide and absolute and can be exercised at any time, that is to say, it can be exercised even in. respect of criminal matters which are sub judice; and the argument is that the power to suspend sentence is part of the larger power to grant pardon, and is similar in character and can be simi-larly exercised. This argument is fallacious; it ignores

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS

the essential difference between the general power to grant pardon etc., and the power to suspend sentence in criminal matters pending before this Court. The first is an exclusively executive power vesting in the Governor under Art. 161; it does not vest in this Court; and so the field covered by it is exclusively subject to the exercise of the said executive power; and so there can be no question of any conflict in such case; conflict of powers obviously postulates the existence of the same or similar power in two authorities; on the other hand, the latter power vests both in this Court and the Governor, and so the field covered by the said power entrusted to this Court under Art. 142 can also be covered by the executive power of the Governor under Art. 161, and that raises the problem of possible conflict between the two powers. That is why we have observed earlier that concentration or even undue emphasis on the charac. ter and sweep of the larger power to grant pardon is likely to distract attention from the essential features of the power to suspend sentence with which alone we are concerned in the present proceedings.

K. M. J:.l anavati v.

The State of .Bonibay

Sinha C. ].

As result of these considerations we have come to the conclusion that the order of the Governor grant-ing suspension of the sentence could only operate until the matter became sub judice in this Court on the filing of the petition for.special leave to appeal. After the filing of such petition this Court was seized of the case which would be dealt with by it in accord. ance with law. It would then be for this Court, when moved in that behalf, either to apply r. 5 of 0. XXI or to exempt the petitioner from the operation of that rule. It would be for this Court to pass such orders as it thought fit as to whether the petitioner should be granted bail or should surrender to his sentence or to pass such other or further orders as this Court might deem fit in all the circumstances of the case. It follows from what has been said that the Governor had no power to grant the suspension of sentence for the period during which the matter was sub judice in this Court.

great deal of argument was addressed to us as to

[ 1961]

r96o whether the condition imposed by the Governor in his I( .. M[-N ]anavaih t. order impugned in this case was or was not legal. .. k fhG ' In v. t view we ave ta en o t ovcruor s power, so Th• Stat• of far as the relevant period is concerned, namely, after Bo.Way the ease became sub judice in this Court, it is not necessary to pronounce upon that aspect of the con. Sinha c. f. troversy.

In the result. the application dated April 21, 1960,

as amended by the affidavit of July 6, 1960, praying that the special leave petition be listed for hearing without requiring the petitioner to surrender in view of the order of the Governor foils and is dismissed.

KAPUR J . ...:..I havo had the advantage of reading the Order proposed by my Lord the Chief ,Justice, but I regret I am unable t-0 agree with it and I pro-ceed to give my reasons:

Kapur f,

In this petition which is brought for exemption

from surrender to the sentence imposed on the p~Litio­ner question of great constitutional importance arises. The petitioner submits that his seutence having been Huspended by the order of the Governor of the erst.while State of Bombay, the rule made by this Court as to surrender which is condition prece-dent to the hearing of petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court is inapplic-able to him and that it is fit case in which he should be exempted from the operation of tho rule. Tho facts which have given rise to this petition are set out in.the order of my Lord the Chief Justice and need not be repeated here .

. The decision of this petition depends upon the

nature, effec:t, extent and operation of the powers con-ferred by arts. 142(1), 145 and 161 of the Constitution; how they are to be construed and how and to what extent, if any, they are in conflict or in accord with each other. It will be necessary to delve into the history of the preroga.tivo of pardons in England and America and see how far the law la.id down by courts of those countries and the practice there followed is helpful in disoovoring the true intent and purpose of these articles of the Constitution.

Under the Indian Constitution the power to grant

. pardons is vested in the President and the Governors of States. Article 72 deals with the former and art. 161 with the latter. Article 72 which is in Part V, Chapter I, dealing with the Union Executive pro-vides:-

K. M. Nanavati

The State of Bombay

Kapur ].

Art. 72. (1) "The President shall have the power

to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remission of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the . sentence of any person convicted of any offence.

(a) .......................•..........................•.......•....

(b) in all cases where the punishme1,t or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to, matter to which the executive power of the Union extends; (c) in all cases where the sentence is sentence of death.

(2) .....................•..•............•......•....••...•••••....

(3) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) shall affect the power to suspend, remit or commute sentence of death exercisable by the Governor of State under any law for the time being in force:'. Article 161 which is in Part VI is as follows:-

"The Governor of State shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence <Lgainst any law relating to matter to which the executive power of the State extends".

· Article 142( 1) is as under :-

" The Supreme Court in the exe.rcise of its juris-diction may pass such decree· or make such order as is neeessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it ".

Both articles 72 ·and 161 give the widest power to the President or the Governor of State as the case may be and there are no words of limitation indicated in either of the two articles. It was argued that under arts. 142 and 145(1) of the Constitution certain powers are conferred on the Supreme Court and if the articles conferring powers on the President and the Governors are read along with the power given to the Supreme

i96o Court they create a. conflict a.nd therefore to give a. . [[-;:-]].,anacat1 . harmonious interpretation I to a.II the 1· four articles it is v. necessary to cut own t 10 amp 1tu o o t o powers s1a1, of conferred by arts. 72 and 161 of the Constitution. In Bombay regard to suspension of sentences it will be fruitful to tra.ce the legislative hi~tory of the rC'lc\;'.'e.nt powers Kap•• J. of the executive and the judiciary which a.rise for construction.

K M. . [[-;:-]].,anacat1 . v. n, s1a1, of Bombay

In tho Criminal Procedure Code of 1861 (Act XX V

of 1861) the power of the executive wa.s confined to remission of punishments and wa.s contained in s. 54 which wa.s as under:-

S. 54. " When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offonco, the Govero.or Genera.I of India in Council, or the local Government, may, a.t any time, without conditions; or upon any condition which such person shall accept, remit the whole or a.ny pa.rt of the punishment to which he shall have been sentence'd ".

This section was in Chapter III dealing with "Preli-minary Rules" which included among ot.her things . passing of sentences, the place of confinement of per-sons convicted and the power of remission of sentences by the Governor General. In Chapter XXX dealing with appeals bys. 421 the appellate court was given the power to suspend sentences ponding appeals a.nd ~elea.se which was in the following terms:-

S. 421. "In any case in which a.n appeal is

allowed, the Appellate Court ma.y, pending the a.ppea.l, order tha.t t.he sentence be suspended, and if the a.ppella.nt be in confinement for an offence which is bailable, may order that he be released on bail ". '

Then ca.me the Criminal Procedure Code of 1872, Act X of 1872. In Chapter XXIII dealing with execu-tion of sentences the power of the executive to remit punishment was contained in s. 322 which read a.s under:-

S. 322. "When any person has been sentenced

to punishment for an offence, the Governor General of India. in Council, or the Local Government, ma.y at any time, without conditions, or upon a.ny condi-tions which the person sentenced accepts, remit the

1 S.C.R.

whole or any part of the punishment to which he has

been sentenced ............................... ".

And the power of suspension of sentence pending appeals and release and bail was contained in s. 281, section in Chapter XX dealing with appeals which was in the following terms :-

S. 281. "In any case in which an appeal is

allowed, the Appellate Court may, pending the appeal, order that the sentence be suspended, and, if the appellant be in confinement for an offence which is bailable, may order that he be released on bail.

The period during which the sentence is suspend-ed shall be omitted in reckoning the completion of the punishment".

The Criminal Procedure Code was re-enacted in

1882 being Act X of 1882. The pow~r to suspend or remit sentences was contained in separate chapter, viz., Chapter XXlX headed "Suspensions, Remis-sions and Commutations of Sentences". The relevant provision was s. 401 :-

S. 40L "When any person has been sentenced

to punishment for an offence, the Governor General in Council, or the Local Government, may at any time, without conditions, or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence, or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which be has been sentenced.

Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to interfere wit.h the right of Her MajestY' to grant par-dons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punish-ment".

The power of the appellate courts as to suspension of sentences pending appeals was given in s. 426 which was in Chapter XXXI dealing with appeals and that section was as follows :-

" 426. Pending any appeal by convicted per-son, the Appellate Court may, ·for reasons to be recorded by it in writing order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended

]{, M. Nanavati

The Sitile of Bonibay

J(aptir ].

K. Al. :\'anatiati v. The State of Boml::ay Kapur ].

538 SUPREllfF; COGRT REPORTS

and, if he is in confinement, th.at he be released on ha.ii or on his own bond.

The power conferred by this section on an Appel-late Court may be exercised also by the High Court in the case of any appeal by a. convicted person to a. Court subordinate thereto.

When the appellant is ultimately sentenced t-0

imprisonment, penal servitude or transportation, the time during which ho is so released shall be excluded in computing the term for which he is so sentenced".

new Criminal Procedure Code was enacted in 1898, a. portion of which was subsequently amended. The section dealing with powers of suspension or remission

of sentence is 401 which reads as under :-

" 401. (1) When any person has been sentenced

to punishment for an offence, the Governor General in Council or the local Government may at any_ time without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any pa.rt of the

punishment to which he has been sentenced ........... . ........... . . ,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The original sub-section (5) of this section was:

"(5) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed

to interfere with the right of His Majesty or of the Central Government when such right is delegated to it to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment".

And this sub-section was repealed by the Adaptation

of Laws Order, 1950. The words Governor Genera.I in Council or the Local Government were suitably a.mended with the various constitutional changes. ·

The corresponding section of appellate courts is

contained ins. 426 which is in Chapter X XXI deal-ing with appeals etc. The relevant portions of this section when quoted a.re as under :-

" 426. (l) Pending any appeal by convicted per-

son, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be

recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond.

.................................................................. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .

J{. ft!. N ana11ati v. The State of BombaJ! f(apur ].

(2) (B) Where High Court is satisfied that convicted person has been granted special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against any sentence which the High Court has imposed or maintained, the High Court may, if it so thinks fit, order that pending the appeal the sentence or order appealed against be suspended, and also,. if such person is in confinement, that he be released on bail". (This sub-section was added later).

It may be mentioned that in the Code of 1861 the power given to the Governor General was to remit punishment to which an accused person was senten-ced and the power of the appellate court was to suspend the sentence pending appeal in non-bailable offences and to release on bail in bailable cases. In the Code of 1872 also the power of the Governor General and of the local Government was one of remission of punish-ment and the power of the appellate court was of sus-pension of sentences pending the appeal. In s. 401 of the Act of 1882 the legislature chose to use the words "suspension of the execution_ of sentence or remit the whole or any part of punishment". The power· was discretionary and there is nothing to indicate that this power was in any way limited. But the power given to the appellate court was differently worded from what was in the previous Codes in that now it was necessary for the Courts to record reasons emphasising that .the two powers-the one exercised by the executive and the other exercised by the judi-ciary-were two separate powers, no doubt, operating for the same purpose but exercised on different con-siderations and in dilferent circumstances. Of course this does not mean that the courts did not exercise thefr power judicially previous to the Act of 1882.

In the Act of 1898 also-, which is still the law, the same power of suspension of the execution of sentences or remission of punishments is mentioned in s. 401 and in s. 426 giving the powers of the appellate courts the words "for reasons to be recorded in writing " are repeated showing that the legislature wanted to make

}(. Jf _ ,\· rU!IHati v. 1 ht State of [1-;,n~ay

it clear ahont the essential differenco in th~ nature of the exercise of tbA power cc•nferrf'd on the executive 1>11d on the jn<liciary. The words" at any time" in s. 401 are very wide and show tho plenary nature of the power.

In tho Government of India Acts pre\'ious to the Act of I 935 nothing was said about the power of the .Crown or tho power of tho Governor (;pneral aA dPlegate of the Crown, and it cannot be said that the Indian lrgislature, whate1·er its powers, could affect the King's prerogative and therefore any provision in the Criminal Procedure Corle was wholly irnpuissant as to tho King's prerogative of pardons. See Hen-rietta Muir Edwards v. Attorney General of Canada('). Provisions such ass. 401(5) are by way of abundant caution.

Section 295 of the Constitution Act of 1935 was special provision as to thn power of the executive to suspend, remit· or commute scmtence of death. Sub-section (1) of that section pro\'ided that the power of the Go,·eruor General in his discretion were the same as we.re vested in the Governor G<~neral in Council imrnP<liate!y before the commencement of Part Ill of that Act hut save as that no aut.hority in India out-side provi11ce had any power to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any pernon convicted in province. Sub.section (2) was saving clause and it provided:-

S. 295. (2) "Xothing in this Act shall derogate from tlw right of His Majesty, or of tho Governor General, if 11ny such righL is delegated to him by His ~fajesty, to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remis-sions of punishment.."

Thus the power of the King or bf the Governor Gene-ral as delegate to grant suspension remission or com-mutations remained unaffected by the introduction of federal system with division of subjects betw1>en the ('.,entre and the Provinces. This section was in the pa~t dealing with the provisions as to certain legal matters. Thus under the Government of India Act the Governor General in his discretion had the nower (1) [1930] A.C. u4, 136.

to remit etc. sentences of death and Governors of

provinces had the power in regard to all sentences passed in province but the power of the King and of the Governor General as delegate remained un-. affected by the first sub-section of the section. Thus up-to the coming into force of the Constitution the exercise of the King's prerogative remained unaffected, was plenary, unfettered arld exercisable as hitherto.

Historically in England the King as the autocra-tic head of the Government always had the power to pardon. .

. This was part ... of that special pre-eminence which the King hath over and 'above all other persons and out of the ordinary course of the common law, in right of his royal dignity". Bl. Comm. (i). 239.

pa'rdon is said by Lord Coke to be " work of

mercy; whereby the King, either before attainder, sentence or conviction or after forgiveth flll.Y crime, offence, punishment, execution, right, title,· debt or duty, temporal or ecclesiastical". 3 Inst. 23:~.

The common law is thus stated in Hale's Picas of the Crown, Vol. 2, Chapter 58, page 412:

"Reprieves or stays of judgment or execution are of three kinds, viz. :

1. Ex mandate regis.

2. · Ex arbitrio judicis. Sometimes the judge reprieves before judgment, as where he is not satisfied with the verdict, or the evi_dence is uncertain, or the indictment insufficient or doubtful whether within clergy; and sometimes after judgment, if it be small felony, the out of clergy, or in order to pardon or transportation. Prompt. Just 22b, and these arbitrary reprieves 1:nay be granted or taken off by the justices of gaol delivery, also their sessions be adjourned or finished, and this by reason of common usage, 2 Dyer, 205a, 73 Eng. Reprint, 452.

3. Ex necessitate legis. Which is in case of preg-nancy, where woman is convict of felony or treason"; Blackstone thus expresses this prerogative:

"The only other remaining ways of avoiding the execution ·of the judgment are by reprieve or pardon; whereof the former is temporary only, the .latter permanent.

!{. M. ~Yariavali

The Staf9 of Bonibay

Kapur ].

1. reprieve (from reprendre, to take ha.ck) is !(. !if. ,\'a'1at•ati the withdrawing of a. ~entence for a.n interval of time; v. whereby the executiou is suspended. This may be, The .5tatt of first ex a.rbitrio judicis; either before or after judg-/J'linbay ment; as where tho judge is not satisfied with the verdict, or the evidence is suspicious, or tho indict-KapHr ]. ment is insufficient, or he is doubtful whether the offence be within clergy or sometime if it bo a. sma.11 felony, or a.ny favourable circumstances a.ppea.r in the criminal's character,· in order to give room to apply to the Crown for either a.n absolute or cond itiona.l pardon. These arbitrary reprieves ma.y be granted or ta.ken off by the justices of gaol delivery, although their session be finished, a.nd their commission expir-ed; but this rather by common usage, than of 'strict right.

Reprieve ma.y also be ex necessitate legis; a.s, where a. woman is ca.pita.Hy convicted a.nd plcitng her pregnancy; though this is no ca.use to stay the judg-ment, yet it is to respite the execution till ~he be delivered. This is a. mercy dictated by the la.w of nature in favourem prolis ". Bk. 4, cha.pt. 31, pp. 394, 395.

After imposition of the sentence execution of the sen-tence may be suspended for a. time which is known a.s respite and ma.y be granted by the king or by the Court. Orfield's Criminal Procedure from Arrest to ppea.I, p. 529.

As the pos.qessions of the kings of England expand-

ed and several uew colonies came under their sway the power of pardon which the kings exercised ca.me to be exercis!·d by their representatives in the colonies and in America. from them it went to the State Governors and to the President for fedora.I offences. The same process was followed in this country a.s the various ena.ctment.9 a.nd provisions set out a.hove show. It may be repetitive but it cannot be suffici-ently emphasised that both the power of pardon and the power of reprieve which is a. part of the all com-prehensive power of pardon are executive acts and ca.n be exercised at any time and in any circumstances untrammelled and without control and in absolute

freedom except that prescribed by the Constitution ; Craies on Statute La11', page 483.

K. M. Nanavati

In the Constitution the power of the President is the same as it was in s. 295 of the Constitution Act of 1935 and is unaffected in °regard to sentence of death by the power conferred under art. 161. The power of the Governor c9ntained in art. 161 also is of the widest amplitude as the words of the article which have been quoted above would show. In construing constituent or an organic Statute such as the Con-stitution that interpretation must be attached which is most beneficial to the ·widest amplitude of its powers; British Coal Corporation v. King ([1]). The Judicial Committee in Henrietta Muir Edwards v. Attorney General of Canada (') said :-.

The State of Bombay

Kapitr ].

"Their Lordships do not conceive it to be the' duty of this Board-it is certainly not their desire-I to cut down the provisions of the Act by narrow, and technical construction, ........................ ".

In America the exercise of the power of pardon has been held to be governed by the same principles as are applicable to the exercise of the King's power of, mercy under the English Constitution. In U nited'I States v. Wilson(') Marshall, 0. J., referring to the exercise of this power said :

" As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institu-1tions ours. bears close resemblance ; we adopt theirprinciples respecting the operation and effect of pardon, and look into their books for the rules pres-, 1 cribing the manner in which it is to be nsed by the person who would avail himself of it". Wayne, J., in Ex parte Wells (') said :

"We still think so, and that the language in tht; Cons_titution, conferring the power .to grant reprieve~ and pardons, must be construed with reference to its meaning at the time of its adoption. At the time of our separation from Great Britain, that power had

(1) [1935] A.G. 500. (3) 8 L. Ed. 640, 643, 644.

(2) [1930] A.G. 124, 136. (4) 15 L. Ed. 421, 424.

K. A1. 1Vr111at·ati v. The -'tt1t! n,' /Jnmbfly

K11pur /.

been exercised by the King, as the Chief Exocutive. Prior to the Revolution, the Colonies, being in effect under the laws of England, were accustomed to the exercise of it in the variouH forms, as thP-y may he found in the English books. They were of course to be applied as occasionH occurred, and they constitued part of the jurisprudence of Anglo-America.. At that time of the adoption of the Constitution, Ameri-can statesmen were conversant with the pr11rogativcs exercised by the Crown. Hence when the words t.o grant pardons were used in the Constit.ntion, they convey to the mind tho authority as exorcised by the English Crown, or its representatives in the Colonies. At that time both Englishmen anrl Americans attach-ed the same meaning t.o tho words" pardon". In the convention which framer! the ConsWution, no effort was made to define or change its meaning, although it was limited in cases of impeachment.

We must then givo the word the same meaning as prevailed here and in England at the time it found place in the Con&t.it.ution. This is in conformity with the principles laid down by this court in Cathcart v. RobiM<m, 5 Pot. 264, 280; and in Flavell's case, 8 Watts & Serg. 197; Attorney General's brief".

In Ex parte Grossman(') Taft, C. J., said:-

............... The language of the Constitution cannot he interpretetl safely except by reference to the com-mon law and to British institutions as they ·were when the inRtrumont was framed and adopted. The states-men and lawyers of the Convention, who submitted it to the ratification of the Convention of the thirteon states, were born and brought up in the atmoRphere of tho common law, anti thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with othor forms of government recent anrl ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put thtiir concluRions into the form of fundamental law in compact draft, thuy expressed them in terms of tho common law,

(t) 69 L. Ed 5>7. 530, 53'- 535.

. confident that they could be shortly and earnestly understood ".

/(. M. N tOtt:Jvali v. The Slate of Bombay Kapur ].

According to the American as also Indian Cons.titu. tion the power as given to the President is not· to re-prieve and pardon but that he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States except in oases of impeachment. Wayne, J., in Ex parte Wells ([1]) at -page 425 has ex- · plained the difference between the -meaning of these two expressions. " The· first conveys only the idea of an absolute power as to the purpose or object for which it is given. The. real language of the constitution is general, that is, common to the class of pardons known in the law as such whatever they may be by their denomination. We have shown that conditional pardon is one of them. A' single remark from the power to grant .reprieves will illustrate the point. That is not only to be u.sed to delay judicial sentence when the President shall think·the merits of the case or some cause connected with the offender may re-qui~e it., but it also extends to cases ex neUBiitate legis ..................... Though the reprieve -in either case produces delay in the execution of sentence ", the reprieves in the two cases are different in their legal character and different as to the ca.uses which may induce the exercise of the power to reprieve. In India also the makers of the Constitution were familiar with English institutions and the powers of English Kings and the exercise of their power both by the Governor General and the Governo.ts of British India. and ·of its provinces. It will be legitimate to draw on ~nglish la~ for guidance in the construction of the . articles dealing with the power of the President and . of the Governor in regard to pardons including the other forms of clemency comprised in the two artfoles. It will not be inappropriate to say that the framers of the Indian Constitution were not only familiar and trained in British Jurisprudence but were familiar with the American Constitution a.nd they were draft-ing their Constitution in English language and there-fore to draw upon the American parallel would be wholly legitimate.

(1} 15 L. Ed. 421, 425.

/(. J.1 . .;\·anat·ati v. Tise State of Bombay

Kaf>ur ].

The history of the prerogative of pardons and rep· rieves shows tha.t the power of the executive in the ma.ttor of pardons and reprieves and ot.her forms of pardons irrespective of the name used is of the widest amplitude and is plenary in nature and can be exer-cised at a.nv t.imo a.fter the commission of the offonce. The power 'of tho oxecuti ve is an a.ct of grace and cle-mency. It is sovereign or governmental power which in a. monarchy is inherent in the King and in a. Republic in the Sta.te or the people and which may, by the Constitution, bo conferred on an officer or depart-ment. It is a.n execut.ive power of the Governor and it is the sa.me a.s was exercised by the colonial Gover-nors in America. 67 C. J. S. 565.

Wayne, J., in the. matter of Ex parte Wells(') has

described it as a.n a.ct of mercy and a.n a.ct of clemency applicable t-0 pardons of every kind and form. Field, ,J., in Ex parte Garland(') termed it the benign prProga-tive of mercy. It is tho power for a.voiding the exe· eution of the judgment by reprieve or pardon whereof the former is temporary and the la.tter permanent. According to Willoughby's Constit.ution of America., Vol. IIJ,p. 1492:-

" The power to pardon includes the right to remit

pa.rt of the penalty a.s well a.s the whole a.nd in either ca.se it ma.y be ma.do conditional. The power may be exercised at a.ny time a.fter the offence is committed, that is, either before, during, or after legal proceed-ings for punishment". Ex pa rte Garland 4 W a.II. 333. Reprieve whereby the execution is suspended is merely the p.ostponement of the execution for definite time and it does not and cannot defe,it the ultimate execution of the judgment but merely delays it. It is extended to a. prisoner in order to afford him an oppor-tunity t-0 procure some amelioration of the sentence which has been imposed upon him. But power to rep-rieve is an executive act and the sole judge of tho sufficiency of facls a.nd of the propriety of the action is the Governor. No other department in America has control over his actions. The pardoning power is in derogation of the law and the power of pardoning (1) 15 L. Ed. 421, 424· (2) 18 L. Ed. 366, 370 <i 371.

when conferred on the head of the executive is &n executive power and function. The pardon may be con itlona. d[. · ]I ~n t gran t o a. con d•1 t• 10na 1 par on is · not illegal.

x960 - .-. K . M . Nana11at1 v.

Thi s1a11 of Bombay Kapu, J.

It has been held that the power of pardon is not subject to le-gislative control ; Ex parte Garland ([1]); nor is it open to the legislature to change the effect of pardon; United States v. Klein ([2]). The executive may grant pardon for good reasons or bad. or for any rea-sons at all; its a.ct is final and irrevocable. The Courts have no concern with the reasons which actuated the executive. This power ts beyond the control of the judiciary; 39 Am. Jur. 545, ss. 43; Horwitz v. Con- . nor ([8]) . . ·

· Thus in England the exercise of the power by the King is· the exercise of the power of mercy. The power is plenary in nature and unfettered and as far as con-stitutional powers are concerned .it can be exercised at any time after the commission of the offence. In America the power of the executive under the Federal or State Constitution is the same in its nature a.s that exercised by the representative of the English Crown in America in colonial times. 67 C. J. S. 565. It pas been said that executive clemency exists to afford relief from undue harshness or individual mistake in the operation or enforcement of the criminal law. It is essential in popular Governments as well as in mon-archies to vest in .some other party than courts the power to amelior.ate or a.void particular criminal judg-ments and the exercise of this power is the exercise by the highest executive of his full discretion and with the confidence that lie will not abuse it.

In Ex parte Garland (1), it was held that the Presi-dent's pardon was not subject to legislative control, said Field, J ., "the law thus conferred is unlimited ................................. It extends to every offence known to the law and may be exercised a.t a.ny time a.ftor its commission .............................. The power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect not exclude from its effect ariy class of offenders. The benign prerogative, (1) 18 L . Ed, 366, 370 cl 371, (:i) 2.0 L . Ed. 51~'.

(3) 6 C. L. R. 1497,

K. M. .'!\' anavat i \'. Thi Slate of Bornbay Kapur ].

548 SCPRE:ME COl:RT REPORTS

of mercy resposed in him cannot bo fettered by a.ny legislative restriction .............................. ". In Ex parte Grossman(') it was held that there was no difference between the power of the President a.nd that of the king in regard to pardon and a.t page 535 it was observed by Ta.ft, C. J. :-

"Executive clemency exists to afford relief from undue harshness or evident mistake in the operation or enforcement of the criminal law. The administra-tion of justice by the courts is not necessarily a.lwa.ys wise or certainly considerate of circumstances which ma.y properly mitigate guilt. ·To afford a. remedy, it ha.s always been thought essential in popular govern-ments, a.s well as in monarchies to vest in some other authority than the court power to a.meliorate or avoid particular criminal judgment. It is a. check intrusted to the Executive for special cases".

That case also la.id down that the exercise of the exe-cutive power to the uxtent of dostroying the deterrent effect of judici1~l punishment would be to pervert it but whosoever is to make the power useful must have full discretion to exercise it and that discretion is ves-ted in the highest officer in the nation.

In Biddle v. Vuco Perovich('), Holmes, J., in dealing with pardons said:-

" Pardon is not a. private a.ct of grace from a.n

iudividual happening to possess power. It is a. pa.rt of the constitutional scheme. When granted it is the determina.tiou of the ultimate authority that the pub-lic welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed"

and in Sorrells v. United States(') the observation of Holmes, J., were followed a.ud it was held the clemency is the function of the executive and it is the function of the courts to construe the Statute and not to defeat it as construed.

review of these American cases shows that the

courts there have accepted that the English principles respecting the extent, operation and effect of pardons a.nd reprieves apply in America.; that the power which (1) 65 L. Ed. s•7· 530, 532, 535· (2) 71 L. Ed. 1161, u63. 13) 77 L. Ed. 413 at p. 4"·

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

was exercised by the king and by delegation by the

colonial Governors is now exercised by the highest executive in the land and that pardon which includes reprieve and respite may variously be described as an act of clemency, an act of mercy, an act of grace, an exercise of the sovereign or governmental power or the determination of the ultimate authority. There-fore the principles which govern the exercise of this , executive power are quite different from those which govern the exercise of the power of the courts. It may also be pointed out that the American courts have frowned upon any interference by the courts or by the legislature with the extent and effect of the prero-gative of the people vested in the President in the exercise of his power of benign mercy. It was so held iu Ex parte Garland (') and United States v. Klein('). In the former case the President had given pardon to rebels who liad taken part in the civil war against the forces of the federation and the legislature had reversed that pardon and it was held that pardon was not subject to legislative control and in the latter which' was conditional pardon the power of the legis-lature was held not to be exercisable.

K. M. Nanavati v.

The State of Bombay

Kapur ].

The power of the executive can be exercised at any time. This is so in England, in America and in India. "The King", said Lord Coke, "can forgive any crime, offence, punishment or execution either before attain-der, sentence or conviction or after~· ; 3 Insti. 233; Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown bk. 2, Chapt. 37. ·In the Indian Statute the words "any time" are expressly used in s. 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in England it is an accepted practice that the Crown can pardon before or after conviction or before trial. As far as the power of pardon before trial is concern-ed it can be exercised by entering nolle prosequi which is also the law in India. Undet s. 333 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Advocate General can, in cases tried before the High Court, enter nolle prosequi and this power is absolute and not subject to the control of the court. This section makes it clear that befo.re verdict is given the Advocate-General may inform the (t) 18 L. Ed. 366, 370& 371. (2) 20L. Ed. ''9·

court on behalf of the Government that he will not .. M. Nanav1iti further prosecute tho defendant upon the charge and v. he· shall be discharged but this discharge doos not Tiu State of a.mount to acquittal unless the Judge otherwise directs. Bombay We a.re informed that in tho city of Bombay the power of the Ad voca.te. Genera.I extends to cases tried Kapu• ]. by the court of Ses8ion. There i8 no chance of private complainant being able to restart the proceedings because the Crown can always take over any criminal proceeding and then enter a. noUe prosequi. Similarly the power is gi>en in regard to other courts of original jurisdict.ion to the Public Prosecutor under s. 494, Criminal Procedure Code, but that power is not a.s absolute as it is in thu case of s. 333 because it is subject to the consent of the Court.

In the absence of constitutional restrictions the power of pardon and reprieve whether conditional or unconditional may be exercised at any time aftrr the commission of the offence either before legal proceed-ings a.re ta.ken or during their pendency or a.flPr an appeal is filed and while tho ca.so is pending iu the appellate court. It was so held in Ex parte Grossman (') ; Ex parte Garland(') and so stated in 67 C. J. S. 572. In the absence of a. limitation imposed by law there is no limit to the period of roprievo and successive repri-eves where period is prescribed arc not illegal : 67 c. J. s. p. 582. '

case where the power of reprieve was exercised and operated during the pendency of the appellate proceedings is Rogers v. Peck ('). There one .Mary Mabel Rogers was granted reprieve to permit her to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from the order of the District Court denying habe,as corpus. She was con victe<l of murder at the December term 1903 and was confined in solitary confinement until J<'ebrua.ry 3, 1905, on which day she was to suffer the penalty of death. On February I, 1905, the Governor reprieved the execution of sentence until June 2, 1905. On April 29, 1905, she presented a. petition ror a. new trial to the Supreme Court of the State. The petition was admitted on May 5, 1905, and fixed for hearing on (1) 6g L. Ed. 527, 530, 53s, 535. (>) 18 L. Ed. 366, 370 .t 371. (3) 50 L • .Ed. 256.May 10, 1905, but was dismissed on May 30, 1905, and new trial was refused. On June 1, 1905, the execu-tion of the, sentence was further reprieved by the Governor until June 23, 1905. Thereupon she filed her petition in the Federal Court for writ of habeas corpus which was dismissed: On that date the Gover-nor further repdeved the execution of the sentence until December 8, 1905. The appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States was admitted on June 22, 1905, but the appeal was finally dismissed on Novem-qer 27, 1905. One of the grounds of appeal in tho Supreme Court was that the Governor, by giving the reprieve, issued his order requiring the execution while proceedings \Vere pending in the court of the United States for her relief on habeas corpus and therefore the order was null and void and another ground was the failure of the Supreme Court of the State to grant stay and fixing date"for execution. Both the grounds were overruled and it was held that the reprieve was to allow the cause to be heard on appeal in the Supreme. Court and that the order of the Governor was not against due process clause and when the Governor had given reprieve beyond the hearing in the State Supreme Court there was no occasion for the court to act in the matter. This case shows that the power of reprieve is exercisable even during, the period that proceedings are pending in an appellate court.

The argument in opposition to the submissions of the learned Advocate-General was that although the power of the executive to grant pardon or reprie¥e or suspension of sentence was absolute and could be exercised at any time yet there was sta~utory as well as constitutional limitation on the exercise of .tl:fl:s power which excluded the power of the executive for the period when the case of defendant had been brought before the Supreme Court or before any other appellate court as the case may be. For the latter reference ·was ruade to s. 426 of the Criminal Pro-dedure ()ode which gives the power to appellate courts to suspend sentence pending an appeal for reasons to be recorded in writing and as to. the former arts.

K. .AI, N anavati

The State of Bombay

f(apu' ].

142 and 145' of the Constitution were referred to. Article 142 confers on the Supreme Court the power to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it and art. li5 gives to the Supreme Court power to make ru)es with the approval of the Pre-sident but subject to any law which the Parliament may pass.· Under art. 145 which is the rule making power of this court, the court has made two rules which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal and they are Order 21, Rule 5 and Order 21, Rule 28 and when quoted they are as. follows :-

K. M. Nanavali .v. Tha Stala of . B01J'bay Kapu,. j.

0. 21, R. 5 "When the petitioner has been sentenc-

ed to term of imprisonment, the petition shall state whether the petitioner has surrendered. Unless the Court otherwise orders, the petition shall not be posted for hearing until the petitioner has surrendered to his sentence ".

0. 21, R. 28 "Pending the disposal of any appeal

under these Rules the Court may order that the execu-tion of the sentence or order appealed against be stayed on such terms as the Court may think fit ".

Rule 5 is salutory rule in that the conrt will not hear case in which the party is in contempt of the order of the subordinate court but that rule is in express words subject to the discretion given to this court under art. 136 which stat.es:-

"Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter the Supreme Court may, in'· its discretion, grant special leave to appeal. ........ ".

Rules made under art. 145 are subordinate legislation because they are subj(lct te any law made by Parlia-m,ent and can be changed by the court with the approval of the President. The change of an article, on the other hand, is to be in accordance with the pro-visions of the Constitution and therefore merely because this Court has also the power under the rules. to grant &uspension of sentence and it has m!J.de rules t]J.at it will not entertain any petition for leave 1 to appe.al unless the petitioner surrenders himself to .\ the sentence cannot override the provisions of art. , 161·; because if there is irresolvable conflict between

the article and the rules then the rules must give way,

being subordinate legislation.

K. M. Nanavati

It was argued that the power of the Court under articles 142 & 145 and of the Governor under art. 161 are mutually inconsistent and therefore the power of the Governor does not extend to the period the appeal is pending in this Court because law does not contem-plate that two authorities, i.e., executive and judicial should operate in the same field and that it is necessary that this Court should put harmonious construction on them. Article 142 of the Constitution, it was con-tended, is couched in language of the widest amplitude and comprises powers of suspension of sentences etc. The argument that the power of the executive to suspend the sentence under art. 161 and of the judiciary to suspend the sentence under art. 142 and art. 145 are in conflict ignores the nature of the two powers. No doubt the effect of both is the same but they do not operate in the same field; the two autho-rities do not act on the same principles and in exercis-ing their powers they do not take the same matters into consideration. The executive exercises the power in derogation of the judicial power. The executive power to pardon in,cluding reprieve, suspend or respite sentence is the i>xercise of sovereigti or govern-mental power which is inhe.rent in the State power. It is power of clemency, of mercy, of grace "benign prerogative " of the highest officer of the State and may be based on policy. It is to be exercised on tho ground that public good will be as well or better pro-moted by suspension as by the execution but it is not judicial process. The exercise of this power lies in the absolute and and uncontrolled discretion of the authority_ in whom it is vested.

v. Tlie State of

Bo1nbay

Kapur f.

absolute and and uncontrolled discretion of the authority_

The power of the courts to suspend sentences is to be exercised on judicial considerations. At Common Law, it was held in Ex parte U. S. (') courts possessed and asserted the right to exert judicial discretion in the enforcement of the law to temporarily suspend either the imposition of sente.nce or its executi0n when imposed to the end that pardon might be procured or

(1) 61 L. Ed. 129 at p. 14I.

h' . . \/, .\'a11a1:ati v. 1 ht Sta.'e of !Jon;l;ay

that the violation of law in other respects might be prevented. It was also held that Federal District Court exceeds its power by ordering that execution of sentence imposr<i by it upon a. pie"' of guilt.y be suspended indefinitely during good behaviour upon considerations .wholly 1•xtraneous to the legality of the conviction: Ex parte U.S.(').

J\larshall, C. J., in U. S. v. George Wilson(') stated as follows:-

" ..................... It is comtitucnt part of the

judicial system that the judge sees only with judi-cial eyes, and knows nothing respecting any particu-lar case, of which be is not informed judicially".

In Ex parte Grossman('), it was said that administra-tion of justice by th·~ courts is not necessarily or always wise or considerate of circumstances which may mitigatJ guilt and in order to n·medy this it waR thought necessary to vest t.his in sc;me other authority than the court to a.meliorate or n.void parti-cular criminal judgmer: t~. The 1·xcrciso of this power has the effect of d!'stroying the deterrent elfrct of judi-cial punishment. The extent of the two powers, judicial and executive and the difference between tho two bas been pointed out in United States v. Benz(') in which it was held that no usurpation of the pardon-ing power of the executive is involved in the action of a. court in reducing punishment after the prisoner had served part of tho imprisonment originally im-po8ed. At page 358 tho distinction was stated as follows:-

" The judicial power and the executive power over sentences are readily distinguishable. To render judgment. is judicial function. To carry the judg-ment into effect is au executive function. To cut short sentence by an act of clemency is an exercise of executive power which abridges the enforcement of the judgment, but does not alter it qua. judgment. To reduce a. sentence hy amendment. alters the terms of the judgment itself and is judicial act as much as the imposition of the Rentcnco in the first instance".

(2) L. Ed. 640, 643. 6H.

(1) 61 I..Ed.129atp.141.

(3) <x; L. Ed. y27, 530, 532, 535·

(4) 75 L. Ed. 354·

According to Willis "Courts may exercise the power of suspending sentence although this, like the pardon-ing. power, partakes of the nature of an executive function ; which shows that giving of suspensions of sentences is an exercise of executive power; Willis' Constitutional Law, p. 151.. Clemency is the function of the executive and it is the function of the courts to construe Statute and nnt to defeat it as construed. The judicial power therefore is exercisable on judi-cial considerations. The courts would approach every question in regard to suspension with judicial eye. They are unable to look to anything which is outside . the record or the facts which are proved before them. It is not their sphere to take into con-sideration anything which is not strictly judicial. court knows nothing of case except what is brought before it in accordance with the laws of procedure and evidence and consequently this is a. power distinct from the power of the executive which may act, taking into consideration extra-judicial matters even on the ground that suspension, remission and commu-tation may be more for public good and welfare than no interference. These are all matters of public policy and matters which are not judicial and are within the power of the executive and therefore it cannot be said that the two powers operate in the same field. No doubt they may have the same effect but they-operate in distinct fields, on differrnt principles taking wholly irreconcilable factors into consideration.

K. Af . • \ranavati v. The Stale of Botnbay Kapur ].

Taking the case of pardon· it is important lo note that pardon is granted for reasons other than inno-cence. pardon, it has been said, "affirms the verdict and disaffirms it not". (28 Harvard Law Review at p. 647 by Samuel Williston). Commutation of sentences is power which is.exer-cisable by the executive to ameliorate the rigours of the punishment by courts when death sentences are imposed. It was not contended that the power of commutation is not available to the executive after the sentence is passed and before an appeal is filed or pending the appellate proceedings. It has the same effect as reduction of sentence by court fromdeath to one of imprisonment for life or trnnsporta-tion for life as it used t-0 be. In England and in v. Amcril'a it is exercised on the condition of acceptance 1 lie Stale of by the convict but no such limitation is imposed on Bon1bay the power of the executive under the Indian law. But whereas .the con rt will take into consideration only J.;apHr J. the circumstances which would justify the exercise of judicial power it is open to the executive to act on other grounds and the act of the executive is not sub-ject to review by the courts, the executive being the sole judge Qf sufficinncy of facts and of the propriety of the action and no other branch has any control over executive action.

As to suspension of sentlince again in 8. 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code it is expressly stated that an appellate court can suspend the 'Jentence (or reasons to be stated; no such limitation is impo&_ed on the executive under s. 401 of the Code. The language of the two sections themselves shows the field in which the two powers :iperatc although the elfoct may be the same. It is relevant to consider in this connection the grounds on which court acts in regard to offen-ces pu11ishablc with death or imprisonment. for life (s. 497 of Cr. P. C.) but 110 such restrictions impede exe(;utive action. SimilR.rly when the Supreme Court acts under art. 142 it acts judicially and takes only those facts into consideration which are sufficieut in tho judicial sonKe to justify the exercise of its vower; so would be tbe ease when the power is exercised under the rules framed by the court. Thus it appPars tbat the power of the executive and of the judiciary to exercise the power under arts. 161 and 142 or under ss. 401 and 426 are different in nature and aro exer-cised on different considerations and even may have different effect.

Executive power exercised in regard to sentences passed by courts is in its vny nature the exrrcise of constitutional authorit.y which negatives the orders of the court. Every time it is exercised it conflicts with some order of the court whether it is case of pardon or commutation of sentence or reprieve or suspen-sion or respite. It is an interference with some action

of the court which makes the power of the executive to that extent overriding. It is for this reason that it has been said in American judgments, e. g., Ex p~rte Grossman ([1]) that although the Constitution has made the judiciary as independent of other branches as is practicable it is, as often remarked, the weakest of the three. It must look for continuity of necessary co-operation in the possible reluctance of either of the other branches to the force of public opinion. The action of the executive in interfering with sentences passed by courts is matter which is not within the amplitude of the judicial power of the courts and whenever any action is taken by the executive, unless it is illegal, it is not justiciable nor subject to legisla-tive control.

The power that this court exercises under Order 21, Rule 5 must also depend upon the decision of the question whether art. 145 can be used in derogation of the power given to the Governors under art. 161. As has been stated above, ·being subordinate legislation, it must in reality be subordinate to the provisions of the Constitution which is obvious from the fact that any revision of the articles of the Constitution will require the procedure laid down in the Constitution for its amendment whereas the rules made under the Constitution can be changed by the court itself with the approval of the President or by Parliamentary enactment.The language of art. 161 is of the widest amplitude and applies to the various forms of clemency men-tioned therein. It' is not denied that the power of pardon is not affected by art. 142 and this power includes the power to reprieve. It would be an undue construction of the exercise of the power of pardon to take out from its purview that portion of it which is termed reprieve or stay of execution or suspension and respite of sentence which differs from suspension of sentences only in terminology. The construction suggested would be illogical because the plenitude of t~e language would remain unaffected before the peti-tion for leave to appeal is filed and after the decision

(1) 69L. Ed. 527. 530, 532o 535·

K. M. Nanavati v. The State of Bombay

v. The St~le of Bombay

l(ap14r }.

of the appeal but the power would remain sus-pended during the pendcncy of the appeal proceedings c,·en though the poil·er of pardon and of commuta-tion remains intact and the suggested restriction is not borne out by the language of the article. And this construction is opposed to dHcisio11R of courts of America where tho power is similar as in India. Even on the analogy of the Privy Council case Balmukand v. King Emperor(') where reprieve was granted pend-ing the hearing of the special leave petition, i.e., u pto tho date the petition was taken up, heard and decided and therefore uptil that date the reprieve was neces-sary and proper. In Rogers v. Peck(') reprievo was granted for period of time extending beyond the hcarirg of the appeal proceedings. If the argument as to want of tho power of suspen-sion during the period of pendency of an appeal is sustainable then tho power to commute must equally be so affected because what is commutatio11 when exerc\sed by the executive iS' called reduction of sentence when ordered by the court. The two are neither different in nature nor in effect.

Reference was made to s. 295 of the Government of India Act of 1935 whereby the prerogative of the King and of the Governor General as his delegate was specifically saved. Reference was also made to s. 209(3) of that Act which gave to the Federal Court the power of stay in any case; the argument being th.i.t the prerogative power of the Kiug and his dele-gate the Governor General would not be unlimited but for its being expressly saved by s. 295(2). close examination of these provisions and the application of rules of interpretation do not support the sound-ness of this argument.

Sectiou 2011(3) is in Pa.rt IX The J udica.ture a.nd Chapter I the Federal Court. It gave power to thii Federal Court to stay executions in any case under appeal as follows:

S. 209(3) "The Federal Court may, subject to such terms or conditions as it may think fit to impose, order a. stay of execution in any case under appeal to (1) •12 I.A 133 (2) 50 L. Ed. 256.

the Court, pending the hearing ·of the appeal, and execution shall be stayed accordingly".

J(. Jl.1. N anavati v.

Section 295 is in Part XII Miscellaneous and under sub.head Provisions as to legal matters. Section 295 provided:-

The State of Bonibay

S. 295(1) "Where any person has been sentenced

Kapur ].

to death in Province, the Governor General in his discretion shall have all such powers of suspension, remission or commutation of sentence as were vested in the Governor General in Council immediately before the commencement of Part III of this Act, but save as aforesaid no authority in India outside Province shall have any power to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted in the Province:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section· affects any power of any officer of His Majesty's forces to suspend, remit or commute sentence passed by court martial.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall derogate from the

right of His Majesty, or of the Governor General, if any such right is delegated to him by His Majesty, to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment".

Stay of execution is term appropriate to civil

proceedings as 0. 21, rr. 26 & 29 and 0. 41, r. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure would show but even if it applied to criminal proceedings it would be of little assistance in understanding the meaning of art. 142(1) in any different manner from what has been said above. But s. 295(2) is pressed into service to show that wherever the power of the executive is intended to be overriding it is specifically so stated. So con-strued the power exercisable by the Governor General in his discretion and of the Governor will be of lesser amplitude and subject to the limitation of s. 209(3), whereas the power of the King or the Governor General acting under s. 295(2) will not be so which is seemingly incongruous. Besides the words " nothing in this Act shall derogate" in s. 295(2) onfy emphasise the constitutional position of the King's prerogative and of his delegate and· was more in the nature of

ex abundanti cautela' because under constitutional practice " Roy n'est lie par ascun statme, Bi il ne soil expressement nosme" is principle which has been accepted in this court qua. the Union or the States. " Where tho King has !lny prerogative, estate, right, title or interest. he shall not be barred of them by the genera.I words of an Act if be not named therein "; Broom's Maxims, p. 39 (1939 ed.); Province of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay('), where it was hold that Crown is not bound unless expressly named or is bound by "necessary impli-cation".

. K. J.1 .• va,1at·ati

v. The .'·:rate of Ro"'baJ• Kap"' J.

If the argument of limitation of the King's prero-

gative because of these saving words is sound then it means in the Constitut.ion Act the British Parliament did contemplate a.nd provide that tho power of the King or of the Governor Genera.I as his delegate as to suspensions, remissiom or commutation would be overriding and oxercisable in spite of the pendency of

a.n appeal in the Federal C'.-0urt.

There a.re seven reasons for denying tho argument of conflict between arts. 142 a.nd 161 :-

(I) As ha.s been discussed above, the two articles

operate in two distinct fields where different conside-rations for ta.king action apply. That is how the two articles a.re reconcilable i..nd should be reconciled. This interpretation accords with the rule of statutory co-existence stated in text books on Interpretation of Statutes, which is a.s follows:-

"It is sometimes found that the conflict of two Statutes is apparent only, a.s their objects are diffe-rent a.nd the language of ea.ch is restricted to its own object or subject. When their language is so confin-. ed, they run in parallel lines without meeting". (Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (1953 Ed.), p. 170).

(2) The pr<'per rule of construction of: Statutes was la.id down in Warburton v. Loveland('):

"No rulo of construction ca.n require that when the words of a. Statute convey a. clear meaning ........ . it shall be necessary to introduce another pa.rt of thtt (1) 7S I.A. 271. (•) ' l!.R. 499, 410.

Statute, which speaks with less perspicuity, and of

1960 M. Nanauali · •. •. The State of Bombayj Kapur ].

which thp .w?~ds ma:\'. h? ~apa.ble of such construction K. M. Nanauali as by poss1b1hty to d1mm1sh the efficacy of the other · •. •. provisions of the Act ". The State of

This rule was accepted in regard to the interpretation of ss. 89, 92 and 93 of the Australian Constitution in the State of Tasmania v. Commonwealth of Aus-tralia(') :

"Applying those expressions to these sections I should say they amount to this; Seeing that sec. 89 has an absolutely clear meaning, the rules of constru. ction do not require us to introduce another part of the Statute which speaks with less perspicuity, and to apply that part to the construction of sec. 89. That would have the effect of diminishing the clearness of sec. 89 and appears to me to be an absolute inversion of the rule which is applicable in such case".

In the instant case the words of art. 161 are clear and unambiguous. It is an unsound construction to put fetter ·On the plenitude of the powers given in that article' by reading an earlier article which deals with the powers of different department of Government and uses language " which speaks with less perspi-cuity".

(3) Moreover it is relevant consideration in the matter of interpretation that the two articles are in two different parts. There is ample authority for the view that one is entitled to have regard to the indicia afforded by the arrangement of sections and from other indications ; Dormer v. New Castle. upon-Tyne Corporation(') per Slesser, L .. J. The arrangement of sections into parts and their headings are substantive parts of the Act and as is pointed out by Craies on Statute La.w (5th Ed.), p. 165, "they are gradually winning recognition as kind of preamble to the enactments which they precede limiting or explaining their operation". They may be looked to as better key to construction than mere prea.mble. Ibid p. 195.

(I) I C.L.R. 329, 357· (2) [1940] 2 K.B. 204. 217 (C.A.).

K. M. /\'a11aval1

v. Tlie Stal~ of Bombay Kapur ].

562 St:PRE:llE COURT REPORTS [1961]

In Inglis v. Robertson(') which turned on the meaning of the Factors Act, Lord Herschell se.id :-

"These headings are not in my opinion mere marginal notes but the sections in t.he group to which they belong must be rea<l in conuection with them and interpreted in the.light of them".

Viscount Simon, L. C., said in Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. (') :-

".Moreover, ~ec. 154 contemplates-or, at any rate, provides for-the diRsolution of the tre.nsforor company when the transfer of its undertaking has been made, e.nd there appears to he no means of calling be.ck to life the company so dissolved for sec. 294 occurs in Pe.rt V of the Companies Act, 1929, deal-ing with winding up, whoroe.s sec. 154 is found in Pe.rt IV''.

These cases place accent on the principle the.t tho articles 142(1) and 161 dee.I with different subjects showing operation in separate fields and were not intended to overlap so as to be restrictive of each other.

(4) The le.ngue.ge of art. 161 is general, i.e., the

power extends equally to all class of pardons known to the law whatever the nomenclature used ; Ex parte Wells ([8]) and therefore if the power to pardon is abso-lute and exercisable at e.ny time on principles which are quite different from the principles on which judicial power is exercised then restrictions on the exercise of the lesser power of suspension for period during which the appeal is pending in this court would be e.n unjustifiable limitation on the power of the executive. It could not have been tho intention of the framers that the amplitude of oxecutivo power should be restricted as to become suspended for the period of pendoncy of an appeal in the Supreme Court.

(5) If this interpretation is adopted it would lce.d

to this rather incongruous result that if the appeal is pending in e. Court of Session or the High Court the power of the executive will he abundant, overriding (1) [1898] A.C. 616, 630. (2) [1940] A.c: 1114. (3) 13 L. Ed. 421, 424.

and operative during the pendency of appeals but will be restrictive when appeal is brought in the Sup-reme Court.

K. M. Nanavati v. The State of Bombay Kapur J,

(6) Article 161 is later provision and when it was

adopted the Constitution makers had already adopted art. 72 and arts. 142(1) and 145. It does not seem reasonable that by so juxtaposing the articles it was the intention of the framers to constrict the power of the· executive. The rules of interpretation on this point have thus been stated:.

(a) It is presumed that the legislature does not

deprive the State of its prerogative powers unless it expresses its intention to do so in express terms or by necessary implication. Province of Bombay v. Muni-cipal Corporation of the City of Bombay('); Director of Rationing & Distribution v. Corporation of Cal-cutta ([2]). •

(b) It seems impossible to suppose that so material

change in the constitutional powers of the Governor was ig,tended to be effected by side wind.

(c) The law will not allow alteration of Statute by

construction when the words may be capable of pro-per operation without it; Kutner v. Philips(').

(d) It cannot be assumed that the Constitution has given with one hand what it has taken away with another; Dormer v. New Castle-upon-Tyne -Corporation ('). (e) If two sections are repugnant, the known rule is are repugnant, the known rule is repugnant, the known rule is the known rule is known rule is that the last must prevail: Wood v. Riley ([[5]]), per Keating, J. -_

(e) If two sections are repugnant, the known rule is are repugnant, the known rule is repugnant, the known rule is the known rule is known rule is that the last must prevail: Wood v. Riley ([[5]]), per Keating, J. -_

_ (7) The power given to the Governor in tegard to

pardons is specific power specially conferred as· was vested in the colonial and British Governors in Indian provinces during Bri"tish days. The power give~ to the court under Art. 142(1) is general power exer-cisable for doing complete justice in any cause or matter. If they, i.e., arts. 161 and 142(1) deal with

\1) 73 I.A. 271. (2) Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 1956.

(3) (1891] 2 Q.B. 267, 272.

(4) [1940] 2 K. B. 204. 217 (C.A.).

(5) (1867·8) 3 C.P. 26. .

/(. Al. ,l\'atiatilzti v. The Statt of Bombay

Kapur J.

the same subject matter a.s is contended then a.rt. 161 must prevail over art. 142(1) which is in accord with the constitutional position as above discussed.

In the circumstances of this case I would grant tho petitioner r.•xemption prayed for and proceed to hear tbe special leavP. petition on merits.

BY COURT: In view of t.hc majority ,Judgment, the petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

THE UPPER GA:\GES St;CAH .MILLS LTD.

KHALIL-UL-RAHlllA:\ A.:\'D OTHEHS.

(B. P. SrnHA, C. J., B. P. GA.JENDRAGADKAR,

K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUP'l'A aud

DAS J. c. SHAH, ,JJ.)

Tenancy-Adhivasi ri!;ht, acq,,isitioiz of-I'os.~,,ssion cnntin11cd under stay orders of court.~- - tl"hcthcr such poss,·ssion is on bcluilf of courts-- l'crson recorded in posscssicn as thckadar- ti' /ict11rr an occ11pant in his 01en 1'igl:t-U. 1[1]• Z111nindari Alo!iti"ori and J.a11d Reforms Act, i950, (U. }'. I of z950). s. 20(b).

The landlord granted theka to the ccmp;rny for 10 years ending \\'ith 1350 which \\JS rc11e\ve<l up to 1355 (june 1948). On the company·; refusal to vacate on the cxpi1y 01 the theka the l~ndlord lilcd suit for cjcctment under the LT. P. Tenancy Act, l9J9· The suit was resisted by the company on the ground that it has beco1nc hereditary tenant undC'r s. 29 of that 1\ct. The suit \vas decreed on l\ovcmher 3, 1948, an<l an appeal and second appeal a~ainst the dccrl'e al~o f<l.ilc<l, hut the curnµany rcmain<:d in possession of the land on account of stay orJe1s granted by the appellate courts. In execution t'he lamllord obtained formal possesoion on Octohcr 13, 1950, but the company resisted actual ejectment. On July 1, 1953, the com-pany instituted proceedings to recover actual possession of the land under s. 2J2 of the U. P. Zaminclari Abolition and Land Reforn1s Act, 1950, clairning to have become an Adhivasi under s. 20 thereof. Seclion 20 provi1led that every person who was recorded as occupant.of any lanri in the K/Iasra or Khataimi of 1356 shall be called an adhivasi of the land and shall be