The present petitioners along with other co-accused having been charged for the offences under Section 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Corruption Act) were tried and found guilty for the said offences by the Special Judge (SC, ST), Durg, in Special Case No 16/2006, were sentenced to life imprisonment.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/withdrawal-of-complaint-case-analysis-by-the-court/
The Special Judge, Durg, Chhattisgarh vide the letters 3 dated 2.7.2021, 10.8.2021 and 1.10.2021 respectively gave his opinion stating inter alia that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not appropriate to allow remission of the remaining sentence of the said petitioners.
On 22.3.2022, the Law Department, Government of Chhattisgarh once again gave its opinion that since the presiding Judge of the Sentencing Court had not given positive opinion, the petitioner no.1 and 3 should not be released on remission.
In the meantime, one of the co-accused Ram Chander, who was also convicted along with the present petitioners in the said case, had preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition (Criminal) No.49/2022, in which this Court vide order dated 22.4.2022 directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the said petitioner and directed the Special Judge to provide an opinion afresh accompanied by adequate reasoning after taking into consideration the relevant factors laid down in Laxman Naskar vs Union of India.
The Court in the said judgement, after considering the earlier judgements of this Court, more particularly of the Constitution Bench in case of Union of India vs Sriharan @ Murugan and in case of Laxman Naskar vs Union of India (supra) observed as under: – “20.
The purpose of the procedural safeguard under Section 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.
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.
It may satisfy the requirement of giving reasons if relevant reasons have been given for the order, though the authority has not set out all the reasons or some of the reasons which had been argued before the court have not been expressly considered by the authority.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/enhancement-of-maintenance-amount-a-legal-analysis/
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. Accordingly, we direct the Special Judge, Durg to provide an opinion on the applications of the petitioners afresh accompanied by adequate reasoning after taking into consideration the relevant factors that govern the grant of remission as laid down in Laxman Naskar vs Union of India (supra). All pending applications, if any shall stand disposed of.
Case Title: JASWANT SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (2023 INSC 31)
Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No.-000323 / 2022
