The Supreme Court in Ram Chander vs State of Chhattisgarh has observed that the presiding officer should give adequate reasons while dealing with a remission application u/s 432 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973.
It was noted that inadequate reasons do not fulfil the conditions of section 432 as it serves as an enabling provision for the executive to make an informed decision while taking into consideration all the factors.
S.432 reads thus,
“ 432. Power to suspend or remit sentences.
Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the. presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists.”
The facts in the instant case are that 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 sought the opinion of the Special Judge, Durg and he gave his opinion that in view of all the facts and circumstances of the case and concluded that it would not be appropriate to allow remission of the remaining sentence of the petitioner. The Law department of the Government, therefore, held that the petitioner cannot be released. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner approached the Apex Court by filing a writ petition.
The Court observed that “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..”
Another issue that was raised before the Court was whether the opinion of the presiding officer is binding on the Government. To this, the Court noted that Union of India v. Sriharan[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.
It was also held that the Government may request the presiding officer to consider the application afresh as per the law laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, which also laid down a suggestive list of relevant factors that should be considered while deciding on a remission application by the presiding officer. 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.
[1] 2016 7 SCC 1