NEW DELHI: Supreme Court said it was mandatory and could not be “left to the whims and fancies” of the government to get the opinion of the presiding judge or the court before which the conviction had taken place before deciding a remission plea.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said the guidelines under Section 432(2) with regard to the opinion to be sought from the presiding judge of the court which had convicted the applicant must be complied with mandatorily.
The court rejected the Gujarat government’s plea that the trial court’s opinion was optional. The state was justifying its decision to grant remission without seeking the opinion of the special CBI court in Mumbai which punished the convicts.
The bench also said the presiding judge must state in his opinion whether the application for remission should be granted or refused backed by reasons. It said the reasons must have a bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case and the opinion must have a “nexus to the record of the trial”. The court said the presiding judge of the court before which the conviction happened could never be a member of the Jail Advisory Committee to examine a convict’s remission plea.
The court said the authority should examine various aspects before deciding a remission plea such as (i) whether the offence was an individual act of crime without affecting society at large, (ii) whether there was any chance of future recurrence of committing crime, (iii) whether the convict had lost his potentiality in committing crime, (iv) whether there was any fruitful purpose of confining this convict any more, and (v) socio-economic condition of the convict’s family.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said the guidelines under Section 432(2) with regard to the opinion to be sought from the presiding judge of the court which had convicted the applicant must be complied with mandatorily.
The court rejected the Gujarat government’s plea that the trial court’s opinion was optional. The state was justifying its decision to grant remission without seeking the opinion of the special CBI court in Mumbai which punished the convicts.
The bench also said the presiding judge must state in his opinion whether the application for remission should be granted or refused backed by reasons. It said the reasons must have a bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case and the opinion must have a “nexus to the record of the trial”. The court said the presiding judge of the court before which the conviction happened could never be a member of the Jail Advisory Committee to examine a convict’s remission plea.
The court said the authority should examine various aspects before deciding a remission plea such as (i) whether the offence was an individual act of crime without affecting society at large, (ii) whether there was any chance of future recurrence of committing crime, (iii) whether the convict had lost his potentiality in committing crime, (iv) whether there was any fruitful purpose of confining this convict any more, and (v) socio-economic condition of the convict’s family.
