Remission To Be Considered By Govt Of The State Where Crime Was Committed, Even If Trial Was Transferred To Another State : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the remission or pre­mature release in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State where the crime was committed has to be considered.

The bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath observed that the appropriate Government under Section 432(7) CrPC can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments.

The court was considering a writ petition filed by a prisoner, Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil seeking direction to the State of Gujarat to consider his application for pre­mature release under the policy dated 9th July, 1992 which was existing at the time of his conviction. Shah was serving life imprisonment after he was found guilty for the offence under Section 302, 376(2)(e )(g) read with Section 149 IPC committed in the State of Gujarat in 2004. 

He had filed his petition for pre­mature release under Sections 433 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stating that he had undergone more than 15 years 4 months of custody. His petition filed in the High Court of Gujarat was dismissed taking note of Section 432(7) CrPC on the premise that since the trial has been concluded in the State of Maharashtra, the application for pre­mature release has to be filed in the State of Maharashtra and not in the State of Gujarat, as prayed by the petitioner by judgment impugned dated 17th July 2019.

The Apex court bench noted that the crime in the instant case was admittedly committed in the State of Gujarat and ordinarily, the trial was to be concluded in the same State and in terms of Section 432(7) CrPC, the appropriate Government in the ordinary course would be the State of Gujarat. But the case was transferred in exceptional circumstances by the Supreme Court for limited purpose for trial and disposal to the neighbouring State (State of Maharashtra) by an order dated 06th August, 2004.

".. The appropriate Government can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments under Section 432(7) CrPC. 14. In the instant case, once the crime was committed in the State of Gujarat, after the trial been concluded and judgment of conviction came to be passed, all further proceedings have to be considered including remission or pre­mature release, as the case may be, in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State of Gujarat where the crime was committed and not the State where the trial stands transferred and concluded for exceptional reasons under the orders of this Court", the court observed while allowing the writ petition.

Case details

Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil vs State of Gujarat | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 484 | WP(C) 135 OF 2022 | 13 May 2022

Coram: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath

Headnotes

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 432 - Remission or pre­mature release has to considered in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State where the crime was committed and not the State where the trial stands transferred and concluded for exceptional reasons under the orders of this Court - The appropriate Government can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments under Section 432(7) CrPC. (Para 13,14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 432 - Remission policy - The application for grant of pre­mature release will have to be considered on the basis of the policy which stood on the date of conviction. [Referred to State of Haryana Vs. Jagdish 2010(4) SCC 216 ] (Para 9)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment