LexRAM CHANDER versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1103 [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1103 1103 RAM CHANDER v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 49 of 2022) APRIL 22, 2022 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 432- Power to suspend or remit sentences – Application of a convict for premature release – On completion of 16 years of imprisonment without remission – Value of the Opinion of the Presiding Judge – There is nothing to indicate that the presiding judge took into account the factors for grant of remission – In his opinion dated 21 July 2021 the Special Judge, Durg referred to the crime for which the petitioner was convicted and simply stated that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case it would not be appropriate to grant remission – The opinion is in the teeth of the provisions of Section 432 (2) of the CrPC which require that the presiding judge’s opinion must be accompanied by reasons – Halsbury’s Laws of India (Administrative Law) notes that the requirement to give reasons is satisfied if the concerned authority has provided relevant reasons – Mechanical reasons are not considered adequate – Thus, an opinion accompanied by inadequate reasoning would not satisfy the requirements of Section 432 (2) of the CrPC – Further, it will not serve the purpose for which the exercise under Section 432 (2) is to be undertaken, which is to enable the executive to make an informed decision taking into consideration all the relevant factors – Petitioner’s application for remission should be re-considered – Special Judge, Durg to provide an opinion on the application afresh accompanied by adequate reasoning that takes into consideration all the relevant factors that govern the grant of remission. Constitution of India, 1950 – Art.32 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.148,149,302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 432, 433A - Chhattishgarh Prisons Rule 1968 - Rule 358- Pre-mature release - Remission of sentence - On 7 December 2010, trial court convicted the petitioner and other accused for assaulting the A B C D E F G H 1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R. complainant and killing his father and brother – Petitioner sentenced to life imprisonment – Sentence confirmed by High Court – Special leave petition filed by petitioner also got dismissed – Thereafter, on completion of 16 years of imprisonment without remission, petitioner applied for premature release to respondent under Rule 358 of Chhattishgarh Prisons Rule 1968 – As required to be taken u/s. 433 A CrPC, Jail Superintendent sought opinion of the Special Judge on whether the petitioner can be released on remission - On 2 July 2021, the Special Judge gave his opinion - That in view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate to allow remission of the remaining sentence of the petitioner - Opinion of Law Department also sought – Law Department stated that since the presiding judge of the sentencing court has not given a positive opinion, he cannot be released – Feeling aggrieved, present appeal filed - Held : The purpose of the procedural safeguard u/s 432 (2) of the CrPC would stand defeated if the opinion of the presiding judge becomes just another factor that may be taken into consideration by the government while deciding the application for remission – It is possible then that the procedure u/s. 432 (2) would become a mere formality – However, this is not to say that the appropriate government should mechanically follow the opinion of the presiding judge – If the opinion of the presiding judge does not comply with the requirements of s. 432 (2) or if the judge does not consider the relevant factors for grant of remission that have been laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India the government may request the presiding judge to consider the matter afresh – In the present case, there is nothing to indicate that the presiding judge took into account the factors which have been laid down in Laxman Naskar – Thus, an opinion accompanied by inadequate reasoning would not satisfy the requirements of s. 432 (2) of the CrPC – Further, it will not serve the purpose for which the exercise u/s. 432 (2) is to be undertaken, which is to enable the executive to make an informed decision taking into consideration all the relevant factors – Hence, the petitioner’s application for remission should be re- considered – Special Judge is directed to provide an opinion on the application afresh accompanied by adequ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.