Remission Of Sentence Under Indian Law
Remission of Sentence under Indian Law:
Definition:
Remission means the reduction of the period of sentence by the competent authority (usually the State Government) without changing the character of the sentence. It is a way of shortening the sentence awarded to a convict without setting aside the conviction.
Legal Basis:
Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 empowers the State Government to remit (reduce) or commute (change) sentences.
Remission generally applies to sentences of imprisonment, not to fines or sentences involving capital punishment (unless specifically provided).
Key Points:
Remission is a prerogative power of the State.
It is a concession and not a right of the prisoner.
It does not imply acquittal or setting aside of the conviction.
The remission power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in violation of any statutory provisions.
It is often granted for good behavior, participation in rehabilitation, or other grounds such as overcrowding in prisons.
Important Case Laws on Remission of Sentence:
1. In Re: Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526
Facts:
Prem Shankar Shukla was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. The question arose about the power of the State Government to remit a sentence of imprisonment under Section 432 of the CrPC.
Key Holding:
The Supreme Court held that remission is a statutory power vested in the State Government.
Remission is not a matter of right but a matter of grace or privilege.
The State Government must exercise the power reasonably and not arbitrarily.
The power to remit does not extend to cases where the sentence is already served or when the statute expressly prohibits remission.
2. Union of India vs V. Narayana (1959) AIR 20
Facts:
The case dealt with the scope of the power of remission and whether it can be challenged by the convict.
Key Holding:
The Supreme Court observed that remission is an executive act and cannot be questioned in court except in cases of mala fide or arbitrariness.
The power to remit is discretionary and a prisoner has no legal right to claim remission.
However, this discretion must be exercised within the limits of law and should not be whimsical.
3. Rameshwar Prasad vs State of Bihar (2006) 2 SCC 42
Facts:
This case dealt with the constitutionality of the remission policy and its application in granting remission to prisoners.
Key Holding:
The Supreme Court emphasized that remission policy must be transparent, fair, and consistent.
It held that remission cannot be granted on discriminatory grounds.
The State has to follow the policy framed for remission and ensure that it is applied uniformly.
Remission is not a right but a privilege, and it is subject to conditions laid down in the policy.
4. State of Maharashtra vs Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
Facts:
This case did not deal directly with remission but clarified the difference between remission and pardon/commutation.
Key Holding:
Remission reduces the sentence but does not change the sentence type.
Commutation changes the sentence to a lighter form.
Pardon completely exempts the convict from punishment.
The court highlighted the importance of differentiating remission from other forms of clemency for proper legal interpretation.
5. Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the conditions of his imprisonment and the remission policy of the Delhi Administration.
Key Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that prisoners have fundamental rights and the remission policy must comply with these rights.
The Court held that the power of remission should be exercised fairly and not in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner.
The policy of remission should consider the prisoner's conduct and rehabilitation efforts.
Summary of Key Legal Principles on Remission:
| Aspect | Principle |
|---|---|
| Nature | Statutory power and prerogative of the State Government |
| Legal Status | A privilege, not a right |
| Grounds for Remission | Good behavior, rehabilitation, overcrowding, etc. |
| Judicial Review | Limited; only malafide or arbitrary exercise can be challenged |
| Policy Requirements | Must be fair, transparent, non-discriminatory, and uniformly applied |
| Effect | Reduces sentence period but does not alter conviction or sentence type |
RELATED Blog
0 comments