Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gourav Narendra Singh, a convict undergoing rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 376 IPC and 1 year under Section 506 IPC, filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur. He sought quashing of the order of the Superintendent of Prison, Amravati (Respondent No.2), which rejected his application for remission under Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 03/06/2017. The petitioner also sought a declaration that the opinion of the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, was contrary to the G.R., and a direction to grant remission. The petitioner was convicted by the Special Court at Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.500 of 2013 on 29/03/2017. He applied for remission under the G.R., and as required by Section 432(2) Cr.P.C., an opinion was sought from the convicting court. On 08/06/2021, the Additional Sessions Judge forwarded an opinion stating that the petitioner's case was not fit for remission. The Superintendent of Prison then passed an order rejecting remission, which was not communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the opinion of the Presiding Judge was not binding and that the G.R. entitled him to remission. The respondents contended that the opinion was binding and that the order was valid. The High Court held that the opinion under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. is not binding on the government; it is only a relevant factor. The court also held that the order of the Superintendent must be communicated to the convict. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application afresh, taking into account the G.R. and the observations in the judgment, within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Remission - Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. - Opinion of Presiding Judge - The opinion of the Presiding Judge of the convicting court under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. is not binding on the appropriate government; it is only a relevant factor to be considered. The government must independently apply its mind to the facts and the Government Resolution. (Paras 6-9) B) Criminal Procedure - Remission - Communication of Order - Section 432 Cr.P.C. - The order of the Superintendent of Prison rejecting remission must be communicated to the convict. Non-communication violates principles of natural justice. (Para 10) C) Criminal Procedure - Remission - Government Resolution dated 03/06/2017 - The Government Resolution provides for remission to convicts who have undergone a specified period of sentence. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application afresh in light of the G.R. and the observations in the judgment. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the opinion of the Presiding Judge of the convicting court under Section 432(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is binding on the appropriate government while considering remission, and whether the order of the Superintendent of Prison rejecting remission without communicating the opinion is sustainable.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08/06/2021 passed by the Superintendent of Prison, Amravati is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application for remission afresh in light of the Government Resolution dated 03/06/2017 and the observations made in the judgment, within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Remission
- Government Resolution
- Section 432(2) Cr.P.C.
- Opinion of Presiding Judge
- Binding Nature
- Communication of Order
