Judicial Secretary's decision on premature release challenged; Court emphasizes adherence to statutory protocols under Section 432(2) of CrPC
In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court has directed a re-evaluation of the remission application of life convict Md. Amjad, whose plea for premature release was previously denied by the Principal Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal. The case revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 432(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which mandates obtaining the presiding judge's opinion of the convicting court before granting remission.
Justice Om Narayan Rai, who presided over the matter, found that the opinion provided by the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, did not meet statutory requirements, lacking adequate reasoning and consideration of relevant factors such as potential recidivism and socio-economic conditions. The Court emphasized that the opinion should not be a mere reiteration of the conviction but must be based on a thorough evaluation of all pertinent aspects.
The case dates back to 2003 when Md. Amjad was convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Despite a recommendation for premature release by the State Sentence Review Board in its 69th meeting in 2022, his release was denied, leading to the present writ petition.
The Court criticized the Judicial Secretary's decision for mechanically accepting the negative opinion of the Chief Judge as binding, without independent assessment, thereby rendering the decision unsustainable. The judgment clarified that while the opinion of the presiding judge is significant, it is not binding, and the executive must independently evaluate remission applications.
In light of these findings, the Court set aside the Judicial Secretary's order and remitted the matter back to the Chief Judge for a fresh opinion, ensuring compliance with statutory guidelines. The State authority was directed to make a new decision based on this revised opinion within a month.
The judgment highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring procedural fairness in remission processes and reinforces the need for a balanced approach considering both judicial advice and executive discretion.
Bottom Line:
Power of remission and premature release of life convicts - Opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC must comply with statutory requirements and consider relevant factors laid down by the Supreme Court. Judicial Secretary cannot treat the opinion of the presiding Judge as binding but must consider it as valuable advice based on the judicial record.
Statutory provision(s):
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 432(2), Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226
Md. Amjad @ Md. Amzad @ Amjed v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2852278
