In Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 595, this Court laid down that the following factors must be reported by the police in respect of the grant of pre-mature release:
(a) Whether the offence is an individual act of crime that does not affect the society;
(b) Whether there is a chance of the crime being repeated in future;
(c) Whether the convict has lost the potentiality to commit crime;
(d) Whether any purpose is being served in keeping the convict in prison; and
(e) Socio-economic conditions of the convict’s family.
21. 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.
22. In the present case, 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. Jagdish17, this Court has reiterated that these factors will be considered while deciding the application of a convict for premature release.
25. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the petitioner’s application for remission should be re-considered. We direct the Special Judge, Durg to provide an opinion on the application afresh accompanied by adequate reasoning that takes into consideration all the relevant factors that govern the grant of remission as laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (supra). The Special Judge, Durg must provide his opinion within a month of the date of the receipt of this order.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD; ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
Writ Petition (Crl) No 49 of 2022
Ram Chander Vs The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Author: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J
Dated: April 22, 2022.
Citation: (2022) 12 SCC 52.
Print Page