Bombay HC: Special remission due to birth anniversary of Dr. Ambedkar is not available to convict who were not in jail as on 14.04.2016 or whose appeals were not pending

We are in agreement with the decisions in Akash S/o

Devanand Tempe (supra) and Rameshwar s/o Chunnilal Hardule

(supra). The said GR was issued with a particular purpose as a

special remission scheme and it was made available to those

convicts, who were in jail as on 14.04.2016 or whose appeals are

pending but they are released on bail on suspension of sentence. It was the special occasion i.e. 125th Birth Anniversary of late Dr.

Babasaheb Ambedkar. Whether to grant a special remission or in

other words granting remission under special scheme is within the prerogative of the State Government. Even otherwise also the

wording of the GR dated 03.06.2017 was sufficient to infer that it

was applicable to those category of persons only, but now the

clarification has been given on 20.02.2024, it has to be considered. {Para 7}

8. As the conviction awarded to the present petitioner is in the

case that came to be registered in 2019 and the judgment is

pronounced on 07.02.2020, the scheme is not applicable to him.

After considering the communication dated 04.07.2023 given by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gondia, it can be seen that the offence took place on 01.06.2019, that means on the day when the GR was issued i.e. on 03.06.2017, the offence was not even committed and therefore, it cannot be said that the said GR is applicable to the present petitioner. The present petition is devoid of merits and therefore, deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.865 OF 2023

 Sonu alias Ashwin S/o Vitthal Meshram Vs  State of Maharashtra, 

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI

 & MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

 PRONOUNCED ON : 01.08.2024

JUDGMENT : (PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J )

Print Page

Important Supreme Court and Bombay HC judgments on Remission of convict

 

1) Supreme court guidelines for releasing convict prematurely on remission

This Court also issued certain guidelines as to the basis on which a convict can be released prematurely and they are as under:

1. Whether the offence is an individual act of crime without affecting the society at large.

2. Whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining of this convict anymore.

3. Whether there is any chance of future recurrence of committing crime.

4. Whether the convict has lost his potentiality in committing crime.

5. Socio-economic condition of the convict's family. {Para 6}.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 110 of 2000

Decided On: 01.09.2000

Life Convict Laxman Laskar Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Rajendra Babu and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.

Author: S. Rajendra Babu, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/3130/2000,(2000)7 SCC 626.

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/06/supreme-court-guidelines-for-releasing.html

Print Page

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.]:

Print Page

What is the duty of Session Judge after receipt of application of convict for remission through Superintendent of Prison?

 Similarly, it was incumbent upon the learned

Addition Sessions Judge, Akot either to call for required

information in the context of the facts stated in the application

from the Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati or give his

opinion immediately on receipt of the application. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 83 OF 2020

Akshay Kailasrao Purohit (In Jail) Vs  State of Maharashtra,

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND G. A. SANAP, JJ.

DATED : 27.08.2021

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per : G. A. Sanap, J.)

Print Page

Whether Govt GR regarding special remission on account of 125th Birth Anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar is applicable to person convicted of offence of rape or POCSO Act?

  The GR dated 03.06.2017 carves out six categories which have been excluded from the applicability of GR. Apparently, the offence of rape or POCSO Act does not fall in the exceptional category. The learned Trial Court has misread the said GR while opining that due to seriousness of offence, the petitioner is not eligible. Apparently, the reason accorded by the Sessions Judge is not in consonance with the said GR and thus, the denial is unjust and arbitrary.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 579/2023

Nitin s/o Shamraoji Pawnikar,  Vs State of Maharashtra,

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND

MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI , JJ .

DATE : 19.01.2024.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :

Print Page

When the convict is not entitled to get benefit of Govt GR regarding special remission on account of 125th Birth Anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar?

 The petitioner has applied for special remission on account of 125th Birth Anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar which fell on 14.04.2016. The special remission has been claimed in pursuance of related Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017. 

6. The facts are quite clear that on the cutoff date i.e. on 14.04.2016, the petitioner was not in jail and thus, he is not eligible for the special remission in terms of Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 857 OF 2023

Akash S/o. Devanand Tempe Vs  State of Maharashtra

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND

MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 21.02.2024

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : VINAY JOSHI , J.) :-

Print Page