The Supreme Court ruled that it is not within the domain of Judicial Review for the High Court Judge to have itself exercise the Power of Remission
The respondent was convicted under Sections 302, 323, 324, 325 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life by the Additional Sessions Judge, and the appeal was further dismissed. The allegation against the accused was of murdering one person by firing at him with pistol, attacking him with Kassi and giving hockey stick blows.
The respondent had undergone 12 years and 9 months of actual sentence and 14 years and 6 months with remission when he sought premature release. The concerned authorities kept the issue pending without taking a view one way or the other when the accused approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. In terms of the order, the request for remission has been allowed by the Court itself on the premise that it is covered by the policy.
Counsel for the Petitioner- State submitted that the judge could have only directed the issue of remission to be examined by the concerned authorities and/ or given a time bound frame for taking the decision and ought not to have exercised that power himself.
The division bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka said that it is in agreement with the submission of counsel for the petitioner on this behalf that it was not within the domain of judicial review for the learned judge to have himself exercised the power of remission.
“We would not like to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India at this stage as the respondent stands enlarged 9 months back and no purpose would be served in sending him back to custody and for the State to once again examine the request for remission” the court added.
The bench did not find the exercise of power in the judgment in accordance with law, but it would not like to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India insofar as now the respondent having been given the benefit of remission, it would not be appropriate to put him back in custody.
Case title: State of Haryana & Ors. v/s Daya Nand
Citation: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10687/2022