NDLI: Ram Chander Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Code of Criminal Procedure 1973: s. 432- Power to suspend or remit sentences
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Allowed
Headnote	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 432- Power to suspend or remit sentences – Application of a convict for premature release – On completion of 16 years of imprisonment without remission – Value of the Opinion of the Presiding Judge – There is nothing to indicate that the presiding judge took into account the factors for grant of remission – In his opinion dated 21 July 2021 the Special Judge, Durg referred to the crime for which the petitioner was convicted and simply stated that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case it would not be appropriate to grant remission – The opinion is in the teeth of the provisions of Section 432 (2) of the CrPC which require that the presiding judge’s opinion must be accompanied by reasons – Halsbury’s Laws of India (Administrative Law) notes that the requirement to give reasons is satisfied if the concerned authority has provided relevant reasons – Mechanical reasons are not considered adequate – Thus, an opinion accompanied by inadequate reasoning would not satisfy the requirements of Section 432 (2) of the CrPC – Further, it will not serve the purpose for which the exercise under Section 432 (2) is to be undertaken, which is to enable the executive to make an informed decision taking into consideration all the relevant factors – Petitioner’s application for remission should be re-considered – 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. Constitution of India, 1950 – Art.32 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.148,149,302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 432, 433A - Chhattishgarh Prisons Rule 1968 - Rule 358- Pre-mature release - Remission of sentence - On 7 December 2010, trial court convicted the petitioner and other accused for assaulting the complainant and killing his father and brother – Petitioner sentenced to life imprisonment – Sentence confirmed by High Court – Special leave petition filed by petitioner also got dismissed – Thereafter, on completion of 16 years of imprisonment without remission, petitioner applied for premature release to respondent under Rule 358 of Chhattishgarh Prisons Rule 1968 – As required to be taken u/s. 433 A CrPC, Jail Superintendent sought opinion of the Special Judge on whether the petitioner can be released on remission - On 2 July 2021, the Special Judge gave his opinion - That in view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate to allow remission of the remaining sentence of the petitioner - Opinion of Law Department also sought – Law Department stated that since the presiding judge of the sentencing court has not given a positive opinion, he cannot be released – Feeling aggrieved, present appeal filed - Held : The purpose of the procedural safeguard u/s 432 (2) of the CrPC would stand defeated if the opinion of the presiding judge becomes just another factor that may be taken into consideration by the government while deciding the application for remission – It is possible then that the procedure u/s. 432 (2) would become a mere formality – 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 s. 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 the government may request the presiding judge to consider the matter afresh – 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 – Thus, an opinion accompanied by inadequate reasoning would not satisfy the requirements of s. 432 (2) of the CrPC – Further, it will not serve the purpose for which the exercise u/s. 432 (2) is to be undertaken, which is to enable the executive to make an informed decision taking into consideration all the relevant factors – Hence, the petitioner’s application for remission should be reconsidered – Special Judge is directed 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. Power of Remission - Judicial Review - Discussed.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 468
Petitioner	Ram Chander
Respondent	The State Of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
SCR	[2022] 4 S.C.R. 1103
Judgement Date	2022-04-22
Case Number	49

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Ram Chander Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors.

Punjab State Warehousing Corp. Vs. Bhushan Chander & Anr.

Ram Dhan Vs. State of U.p. and Anr.

State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chander Agarwala Etc.

Manoj Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

Baijnath Jha Vs. Sita Ram and Anr.

Ram Chander Singh Sagar and Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.

Mrudul M. Damle & Anr. Vs. C.b.i. New Delhi

Kuljit Singh Alias Ranga Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Ram Chander Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

Ram Chander Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors.

Punjab State Warehousing Corp. Vs. Bhushan Chander & Anr.

Ram Dhan Vs. State of U.p. and Anr.

State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chander Agarwala Etc.

Manoj Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

Baijnath Jha Vs. Sita Ram and Anr.

Ram Chander Singh Sagar and Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.

Mrudul M. Damle & Anr. Vs. C.b.i. New Delhi

Kuljit Singh Alias Ranga Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Ram Chander Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.