Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a criminal writ petition filed by a prisoner seeking remission under a Government Circular dated 3 June 2017, as amended, which provided for three months’ remission to prisoners serving over five years, excluding six specified categories. The petitioner’s appeal against conviction had been dismissed by the High Court. When his case was subjected to judicial appraisal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vaduj, remission was denied on the ground that the nature and gravity of the offence did not warrant remission. The prisoner challenged this denial, contending that his case did not fall within the six excluded categories. The State opposed the petition relying on the adverse judicial appraisal. The legal issue before the High Court was whether the denial of remission was proper and what should be the scope of judicial appraisal under the remission policy. The Court observed that the power to grant remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is statutory and must be exercised in a reasonable and fair manner, as held by the Supreme Court in Sangeet v. State of Haryana and State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh. The Court noted that the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962, particularly Rule 18, empower the State Government to grant remission on specified occasions. The Court held that while a prisoner has no right to demand remission, he is entitled to have his case considered for remission when a statute, rule, or policy provides for it. The crucial finding was that the judicial appraisal conducted in this case was flawed because the Sessions Judge did not refer to the Government Circular to determine if the prisoner’s case fell within the excluded categories; instead, denial was based solely on the perceived gravity of the offence. The Court emphasized that the proper scope of judicial appraisal is to examine whether the case fits within the exceptions outlined in the circular. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed. The Court set aside the denial and directed the State Government to reconsider the case for remission under the relevant circulars, after obtaining a fresh judicial appraisal in light of the observations made in the judgment. The State was ordered to decide within one month of receiving the fresh appraisal. The Court also directed that copies of the judgment be sent to all jail superintendents and Principal District Judges in the State.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Remission of Sentence - Scope of Judicial Appraisal - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 432; Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962, Rules 4, 18 - The court considered whether denial of remission based on judicial appraisal that merely considered the nature of offence was valid. Held that judicial appraisal must examine whether the case falls within the exceptions specified in the Government Circular and not merely consider the nature of offence. The appraisal failed to refer to the circular, hence the matter was remanded for fresh appraisal and decision. (Paras 3-12) B) Criminal Procedure - Remission of Sentence - Right to Consideration - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 432 - The court held that while a prisoner cannot claim remission as of right, he is entitled to have his case considered for remission in accordance with law when a statute, statutory rule or government policy provides for it. The decision to grant remission must be well-informed, reasonable, and fair. (Paras 8-10)
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.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The denial of remission was set aside. The State Government was directed to consider the petitioner’s case for remission under the Government Circulars dated 3 June 2017 and 19 November 2018, after obtaining a fresh judicial appraisal in light of the observations made in the judgment. The State was directed to take an appropriate decision within one month from receipt of the fresh judicial appraisal. Copies of the judgment were directed to be sent to all jail superintendents and Principal District Judges in the State. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Remission is statutory
- exercise must be reasonable and fair
- prisoners entitled to consideration for remission
- judicial appraisal must examine coverage under circular not just nature of offence
