Law Web: Bombay HC: Factors which Session Judge should consider while giving his opinion regarding remission of convict

It is thus apparent that except the

prisoners of these categories the rest of the

prisoners are entitled to the benefit of

remission under this Government Resolution

dated 3rd June, 2017.

4] Ex facie, the petitioner, who is a

prisoner undergoing a sentence of 23 years

imprisonment, does not fall into any of these

categories. Still, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge in his opinion dated 17th July,

2017, has overlooked these aspects and for

the reasons de hors the Government Resolution

has opined that the petitioner is not

entitled to any remission. He seems to have

misdirected himself in considering the

gravity of the crime when the Government

Resolution does not admit of any such

parameter for extending the benefit. Even a

life convict is entitled to remission to the

extent of three months. It is also apparent

that the learned Additional Sessions Judge

for the reasons best known to him has not at

all referred to the Government Resolution

dated 3rd June, 2017. Had his attention been

brought to it, we are sure the learned Judge

would not have given a negative opinion. Be

that as it may, the opinion expressed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge in

ignorance of or by overlooking the Government

Resolution is clearly faulty.

5] In the light of discussion herein

above, the Petition is partly allowed. The

matter is remitted back to the Additional

Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, for reconsideration.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, to

reconsider the entire issue,

keeping in view the Government Resolution

dated 3rd June, 2017, and take decision as

expeditiously as possible, however, within

eight weeks from the date of receipt of this

order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1710 OF 2018

Santosh s/o. Suryabhan Kale Vs The State of Maharashtra,

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE & R.G.AVACHAT,JJ.

Pronounced on : 08.02.2019

JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:

1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent

of the parties.

2] The petitioner, who is a prisoner

undergoing a sentence of 23 years

imprisonment, for having committed an offence

punishable under Sections 376, 395, 354, 342,

324, 509 of the I.P.C., has filed this

Petition, seeking benefit of remission of

three months declared by the State Government

by Resolution dated 3rd June, 2017, on account

of 125th birth anniversary of Dr.Babasaheb

Ambedkar. However, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge in his report dated 17.07.2017

[ExhibitB]

gave an opinion that he was not

entitled to the remission under that

Government Resolution. Being aggrieved, the

petitioner is before this Court.

3] The Government Resolution dated 3rd

June, 2017, [ExhibitA] provides that on

account of 125th birth anniversary of

Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar, under the enabling

provision contained in Section 433 (A) of the

Criminal Procedure Code, inter alia a

prisoner, who has been sentenced to life

imprisonment, is entitled to remission to the

extent of three months. However, some

categories of prisoners have been excluded

from the benefit of such remission which have

been enlisted as under:

i] Prisoners undergoing sentence under

the provisions of 106 of 110 of the

Cr.P.C.

ii] Prisoners undergoing sentence for

the offence punishable under Section

121 to 130 of the I.P.C.

iii] Prisoners undergoing sentence for

the offences under the Central

enactment.

iv] Prisoners in the Civil Prison.

v] Children from the remand home.

vi] Prisoners who are outside the jail

unauthorisedly.