Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Virendrasingh Ramprakarsingh Khairnar, a convict detained at Central Prison, Nagpur, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the mechanical opinion submitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, regarding remission of his sentence under Government Resolution dated 3.6.2017. The petitioner claimed eligibility for remission benefits as per the conditions prescribed in the Government Resolution. However, the Additional Sessions Judge, while recording a negative opinion, travelled beyond the eligibility conditions, which the petitioner argued was impermissible in law. The petitioner relied on a recent judgment of the same Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.32 of 2021 dated 15.2.2021, which held that such an exercise is not permissible. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, conceded that the issue was covered by the earlier judgment. The Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the petition, quashed the impugned opinion, and remanded the matter to the Additional Sessions Judge for fresh consideration in line with the directions in Criminal Writ Petition No.32 of 2021. The Court also directed circulation of the earlier judgment among District Judiciary officers and the Maharashtra Judicial Academy for guidance.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Remission of Sentence - Government Resolution - Eligibility Conditions - The Additional Sessions Judge travelled beyond the conditions of eligibility prescribed in Government Resolution dated 3.6.2017 while recording a negative opinion on remission, which is not permissible in law. The Court held that the opinion must be based strictly on the eligibility conditions and not on extraneous considerations. (Paras 5-6)
B) Criminal Law - Remission of Sentence - Mechanical Opinion - Quashed - The impugned opinion was quashed and set aside as it was mechanical and exceeded the prescribed conditions. The matter was remanded for fresh opinion in accordance with the directions in Criminal Writ Petition No.32 of 2021. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge exceeded the conditions of eligibility prescribed in Government Resolution dated 3.6.2017 while recording a negative opinion on remission, and whether such mechanical opinion is permissible in law.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned opinion is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur for recording his opinion keeping in view the directions issued in Criminal Writ Petition No.32 of 2021 dated 15.2.2021. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to circulate a copy of that judgment among District Judiciary officers and send a copy to Maharashtra Judicial Academy.
Law Points
- Remission of sentence
- Government Resolution
- mechanical opinion
- eligibility conditions
- judicial review
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (02) 120
Criminal Writ Petition No.70 of 2020
Sunil B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
Mr. A.A. Pannase (for petitioner), Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar (A.P.P. for respondents)
Virendrasingh Ramprakarsingh Khairnar
The State of Maharashtra, The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition challenging the mechanical opinion of the Additional Sessions Judge regarding remission of sentence.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned opinion and remand for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Filing Reason
The Additional Sessions Judge exceeded the conditions of eligibility prescribed in Government Resolution dated 3.6.2017 while recording a negative opinion on remission.
Previous Decisions
The Court had earlier delivered a judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No.32 of 2021 dated 15.2.2021 on the same issue.
Issues
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge exceeded the eligibility conditions in Government Resolution dated 3.6.2017 while recording a negative opinion on remission.
Whether the impugned opinion is mechanical and liable to be quashed.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner was eligible for remission benefits under Government Resolution dated 3.6.2017, but the Additional Sessions Judge travelled beyond the eligibility conditions while recording a negative opinion, which is not permissible in law, as held in Criminal Writ Petition No.32 of 2021.
Respondent's Additional Public Prosecutor conceded that the issue is covered by the earlier judgment of this Court.
Ratio Decidendi
A judicial officer, while recording an opinion on remission of sentence, must strictly adhere to the conditions of eligibility prescribed in the relevant Government Resolution and cannot travel beyond them. Any mechanical opinion exceeding those conditions is impermissible in law and liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
The grievance of petitioner is about mechanical opinion submitted by the concerned Additional Sessions Judge at Nagpur.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the concerned Additional Sessions Judge, however, travelled beyond the conditions of eligibility prescribed in the Government Resolution dt.3.6.2017 while recording his negative opinion in the matter and such exercise is not permissible in law, which is also the opinion given by this Court in it’s recent Judgment delivered in Criminal Writ Petition No.32 of 2021, dated 15.2.2021.
In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned opinion is hereby quashed and set aside.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.70 of 2020 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the opinion of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, on remission. The Court heard the matter, issued rule, and after hearing submissions, allowed the petition on 18.2.2021.
