Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) – Explained: Held: The appropriate government has the power to remit the whole or any part of the punishment of a convict unconditionally or subject to certain conditions – Actual remission takes effect only after the convict accepts the conditions – There is an identical provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in form of section 473(1). [Paras 9, 17(i), 2]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) – The power to grant remission – How to be exercised:
Held: A constitution bench of Supreme Court in Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan & Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 1, while approving the view taken in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 3 SCC 294 held that, the decision to grant remission has to be well informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned – Convict cannot seek remission of sentence as of right – Factors including public interest, the gravity and nature of the offences involved and antecedents of the convict can be looked into by the appropriate government as the power to grant remission is discretionary – Almost all the States including the State of Gujarat who is a respondent here have a written policy on grant of remission in order to avoid arbitrary use of this power. [Paras 10-11, 12, 17(ii), 17(iii)] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) – Nature of the conditions that can be imposed by the appropriate government: Held: The conditions imposed must be fair, reasonable and stand the test of scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution – Conditions cannot be arbitrary as it will violate rights guaranteed under Articles
14 and 21 of the Constitution. [Paras 12, 17(iv)] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) – Whether the condition requiring the convict to behave ‘decently’ for a period of two years after his release from jail is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution:
Held: The condition number 1 imposed by the appropriate government required the convict to: (a) behave ‘decently’ for a period of two years after his release from jail and; (b) submit two respectable sureties to ensure that he does not commit the breach of peace and harmony of the society and does not threaten the complainant and the witnesses – The words ‘decent’ and ‘decency’ are not defined in CrPC or any other cognate legislation, it can mean different things to different people and differently in different times – This condition is thus vague, arbitrary, unclear, unambiguous and capable of having different interpretations – Hence the condition is unenforceable and hit by Article 14. [Paras 13, 18a] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) and 432(3) – Whether the condition providing for arrest and automatic revocation of remission of sentence if appellant commits any other cognizable offence or inflicts any serious injury to any citizen or property after his release, valid:
Held: The Apex Court while dealing with Section 401 of the CrPC of 1898 (identical to Section 432(3) of CrPC of 1973 and Section 473(3) of BNSS), in Shaikh Abdul Azees vs. State of Karnataka (1977) 2 SCC 485, held that, the provision does not intend to automatically revive the sentence already remitted and the government is under no legal obligation to cancel such remission – This drastic power affecting the convict’s liberty has to be exercised only after due compliance of the principles of natural justice – Serving show cause notice, opportunity to file reply and of being heard and a reasoned order by the adjudicating authority are essential before cancellation of such remission – An order cancelling remission can be challenged under Article 226 of Constitution by the convict – Mere registration of a cognizable offence or allegation of breach of condition not a ground for cancellation of remission – A decision to cancel remission has to be made on a case to case basis taking into consideration the seriousness and gravity of offence or breach – Condition number 2 thus clarified. [Paras 14-16, 17(v), 17(vi), 18b, 18c]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Swathi H. Prasad, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Shadan Farasat, Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.