Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Satish Dada Londhe, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging the denial of remission under Government Circulars dated 3rd June 2017 and 19th November 2018. The Circulars, issued under Section 432(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provided for remission of three months to prisoners who had served more than five years, subject to certain exclusions and a requirement of judicial appraisal. The petitioner's conviction had been upheld by the High Court on appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaduj, by order dated 25th January 2018, conducted the judicial appraisal and opined that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the petitioner was not entitled to remission. Consequently, remission was denied. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the denial was justified based on the judicial appraisal. The court considered the legal principles governing remission, citing Sangeet v. State of Haryana, which held that remission is always statutory, and State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh & Ors., which held that the exercise of power of remission cannot be arbitrary and must be well-informed, reasonable, and fair. The court also noted the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962, particularly Rule 18, which allows the State Government to grant remission on occasions of national importance. The court found that the judicial appraisal order was a valid and reasonable basis for denying remission, and the decision was not arbitrary. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the denial of remission.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Remission - Section 432 CrPC - Grant of Remission - The question was whether the petitioner was entitled to remission under Government Circulars dated 3rd June 2017 and 19th November 2018. The court held that the judicial appraisal order dated 25th January 2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaduj, which opined that the petitioner was not entitled to remission considering the nature and gravity of the offence, was a valid basis to deny remission. The court relied on Sangeet v. State of Haryana and State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh & Ors. to hold that remission is statutory and the decision must be well-informed, reasonable, and fair. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled for remission under the Government Circular dated 3rd June 2017 as amended by the Government Circular dated 19th November 2018, in light of an adverse judicial appraisal order.
Final Decision
Petition dismissed. Denial of remission upheld.
Law Points
- Remission is statutory
- exercise of power of remission cannot be arbitrary
- decision to grant remission must be well-informed
- reasonable and fair to all concerned
- judicial appraisal is a relevant factor
