Presiding Judge Should Give Adequate Reasons In Opinion On Sentence Remission U/Sec 433(2) CrPC : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a presiding officer of the sentencing court while giving opinion on a remission application should give adequate reasons. Inadequate reasons in the opinion of the presiding officer of the sentencing court would not satisfy the requirements of Section 432 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose observed.The court observed that the purpose of Section 432(2) CrPC is to enable the executive to make an informed decision taking into consideration all the relevant factors.In this case, the petitioner, who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life, submitted an application for premature release to the respondent under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rule 1968. The Jail Superintendent of the Central Jail at Durg sought the opinion of the Special Judge, Durg 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. The Law department of the Government therefore held that since the presiding judge of the sentencing court has not given a positive opinion with regard to the release of the petitioner, he cannot be released. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner approached the Apex Court by filing a writ petition.Opposing this petition, the State contended that it has an undoubted discretion to remit or refuse to remit the sentence and no writ can be issued to direct the State Government to release the petitioner. In this regard, the court observed thus:"While the court can review the decision of the government to determine whether it was arbitrary, it cannot usurp the power of the government and grant remission itself. Where the exercise of power by the executive is found to be arbitrary, the authorities may be directed to consider the case of the convict afresh.....The Court has the power to review the decision of the government regarding the acceptance or rejection of an application for remission under Section 432 of the CrPC to determine whether the decision is arbitrary in nature. The Court is empowered to direct the government to reconsider its decision."Regarding the issue whether the opinion of the presiding judge would be binding, the Court noted that in Union of India v. Sriharan 2016) 7 SCC 1, it was not specifically held that the opinion of the presiding judge would be binding. But it was held that the decision of the government on remission should be guided by the opinion of the presiding officer of the concerned court, the bench noted. The court made the following observations:It is not a 'just another factor'In Sriharan (supra), the Court observed that the opinion of the presiding judge shines a light on the nature of the crime that has been committed, the record of the convict, their background and other relevant factors. Crucially, the Court observed that the opinion of the presiding judge would enable the government to take the 'right' decision as to whether or not the sentence should be remitted. Hence, it cannot be said that the opinion of the presiding judge is only a relevant factor, which does not have any determinative effect on the application for remission. The purpose of the procedural safeguard under Section 19 432 (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 under Section 432 (2) would become a mere formality. The government may request the presiding judge to consider the matter afresh.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 Section 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 (supra), the government may request the presiding judge to consider the matter afresh.An opinion accompanied by inadequate reasoning would not satisfy the requirements of Section 432 (2) CrPCIn the present case, the court observed that there is nothing to indicate that the presiding judge took into account the factors which have been laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (supra). These factors include assessing (i) whether the offence affects the society at large; (ii) the probability of the crime being repeated; (iii) the potential of the convict to commit crimes in future; (iv) if any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison; and (v) the socio-economic condition of the convict's family. In Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal (supra) and State of Haryana v. Jagdish, this Court has reiterated that these factors will be considered...

Presiding Judge Should Give Adequate Reasons In Opinion On Sentence Remission U/Sec 433(2) CrPC : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Presiding Judge Should Give Adequate Reasons In Opinion On Sentence Remission U/Sec 433(2) CrPC : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers