Jagannadhadas, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave and arises under somewhat unusual circumstances. The appellant was convicted of murder in Session Judge of Trichur now in the State of Travancore-Cochin and sentenced to death. The sentence was in due course confirmed by the High Court and an application for leave to appeal against it to this Court was rejected. The appellant filed mercy petitions to the Raj Pramukh to Travancore - Cochin and to the President of India and both of them were rejected. After all these attempts had failed, the Sessions Judge issued a warrant on the 29th March, 1955, fixing 6th April, 1955, for the execution of the prisoner. Meanwhile, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Viyyur, where the condemned prisoner was lodged, informed the Sessions Judge by his letter dated the 1st April, 1955, that the prisoner had sent a mercy petition to the Maharaja of Cochin and requested for directions, since no orders had been received in respect of that petition. It may be mentioned that the Sessions Division of Trichur is admittedly in the former State of Cochin. It does not appear from the record whether this mercy petition to the Maharaja of Cochin was sent before or after the mercy petitions of the Raj Pramukh of Travancore-cochin and to the President were disposed of. On receipt of the letter dated the 1st April, 1955, from the Superintendent, Central Jail, the Sessions Judge passed an order that the circumstances of the case demanded that the execution of the sentence should not take place on the date already fixed. He accordingly issued an order staying execution of the sentence previously ordered by his warrant dated the 29th March, 1955. At this stage, the Public Prosecutor filed an application in the Sessions Judge on the 30th May, 1955, praying that the stay may be vacated and that fresh directions to execute the warrant may be issued. On that application, the Public Prosecutor raised the question that a mercy petition to the Maharaja of Cochin, who as such, has lost sovereignty over the territory forming part of the previous Cochin State, and hence also lost his prerogative of pardon, was incompetent and could not stand in the way of the warrant being executed. The learned Sessions Judge dealt with this question and agreed with the contention of the Public Prosecutor. Accordingly he vacated the stay and issued a fresh warrant for execution of the prisoners giving a week's time to the prisoner to take the matter on appeal to the High Court, if so advised. The prisoner filed an appeal to the High Court and the learned Judges of the High Court after consideration of the arguments on both sides agreed with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge, and dismissed the appeal by its Judgment dated the 17th June, 1955. The present appeal is against this order of the High Court.
(2.) For the hearing of this appeal counsel was assigned to the appellant 'amicus curiae' and all the relevant constitutional provisions have been fully and fairly placed before us. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also been heard. We are satisfied that the question that has been raised does not admit of substantial argument and that the view taken by both the Courts below is correct.
(3.) The entire basis for any argument on behalf of the appellant is the pre-existing undoubted power of the Maharaja of Cochin to exercise the prerogative of pardon in respect of a sentence of death passed by the Courts within his state. That prerogative right has been affirmed in Article XXI of the Covenant dated the 29th May, 1949, entered into between the Rulers of Travancore and Cochin for the formation of the United States of Travancore and Cochin. The Article is in the following terms: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions of this Covenant the Rulers of Travancore and Cochin shall continue to have, and exercise, their present power of suspension, remission or commutation of death sentences in respect of any person who may have been, or is hereafter sentenced to death for capital offence committed within the territories of Travancore or Cochin as the case may be." It is only on the assumption that the power thus recognised in this Article of the Covenant still survives in the Maharaja of Cochin, notwithstanding that he had lost his sovereighnty over the territories which constituted the State of Cochin that the appellant has any statable case. But this assumption is clearly unfounded having regard to the events which culminated in the accession and integration of the State of Travancore - Cochin with the Dominion of India and thereafter its absorption into the Union of India, when the Constitution of India came into operation on the 26th January 1950. The relevant historical events may briefly be stated.;