Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Govt's Order Granting Remission To A Convict Who Was Awarded Life Imprisonment In 2 Cases

Observing that the convict (Man Singh) was not entitled to remission of the sentence as his case was covered by prohibition no. (x) of the State Government’s remission policy, the bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Surendra Singh-I directed the convict to surrender within 30 days and to undergo the remaining part of his sentence.

For context, clause (x) of the prohibition class under the Government’s Remission policy of 2018 states that a convict, whose sentence could be remitted, should not have been convicted in more than 1 criminal case with a sentence of life imprisonment.

In its order, the Court noted his sentence could not have been remitted as his case was covered under clause (x) of the exempted class of convicts since he had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in two cases (one of which dates back to the year 1995).

The Court also observed that the criminal history of 26 cases to his name was also not brought to the notice of the Governor, the authority who has the power to pardon, commutation and release the convict as per Article 161 of the Constitution of India.

“Thus, respondent no. 5, Man Singh was not entitled for remission of sentence under the provisions of the impugned order issued under G.O. dated 01.08.2018 passed under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. Apart from this, in the impugned order by which the respondent no. 5, Man Singh has been granted remission in his sentence, there is no notice of the fact that he has a criminal history of 26 other criminal cases against him,” the Court said.

In this regard, the Court also considered the Apex Court’s ruling in the Swaran Singh Vs case. State of U.P., (1998) 4 SCC 75 wherein the top court had observed that where the Governor granted remission of sentence to a convict in ignorance of the fact that several other criminal cases were pending against him, the by-product order cannot get the approval of the law and in such cases, the judicial hand must be stretched to it.

The case in brief

The Court was essentially dealing with a criminal writ petition moved by one Sanjay Verma seeking quashing of the Government’s order granting remission to Convict-Man Singh. Verma was fatally injured in the related Sessions Trial of 2007 in which the convict’s sentence was remitted.

Before the Court, the Counsel appearing for Verma learned counsel for the petitioner that argued that the convict had a criminal history of 27 cases which were not taken into consideration while granting him remission.

It was also submitted that the Convict had earlier been awarded life imprisonment making him ineligible for remission as per Government’s 2018 remission policy.

On the other hand, the state government filed an affidavit justifying its order wherein it contended that the power of remission is vested in the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution of India for premature release of the convict persons and the impugned order was validly passed under Article 161 of the Constitution of India.

It was argued that as per the state’s remission policy, he has undergone the sentence of 12 years 2 months without remission and 14 years 6 months and 10 days 6 with remission and the Medical Board had given an opinion that the convict is having “congestive heart failure” making him eligible for remission.

However, the state’s affidavit did admit the criminal history to the name of the convict.

Against this backdrop, the Court, at the outset noted that the exercise or non-exercise of the pardon power by the President or Governor, as the case may be, is not immune from judicial review.

The Court further observed that if the Governor had granted remission of sentence to a convict in ignorance of the fact that several other criminal cases were pending against him. The Court also noted that he was awarded life imprisonment in two criminal cases.

Against this backdrop, finding that the remission was granted in violation of the Government’s order, the Court set the same aside and directed the convict to surrender and undergo the remaining part of his sentence.

Appearances

Counsel for Petitioner: Akash Mishra and Murlidhar Misra

Counsel for Respondent: AGA Ratan Singh

Case title - Sanjay Verma vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10924 of 2019]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 129

Click Here To Read/Download Order