the goan I network
PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has directed the State Sentence Review Board to reconsider the case of remission of 22 convicts, on grounds that procedure was not followed while dealing with the application for remission.
Hearing a petition filed by one Ravi Patil who has already served more than 20 years of his life sentence but whose application for remission was pending, the High Court found lapses in procedure while dealing with not just his but another 21 applications, and directed the Board and the Government to begin the entire procedure once more.
“The decision of the Board in its meeting held is set aside, the Board is directed to consider the case of the Petitioner (Patil) as also 21 other convicts… the Board is expected to take into account all relevant considerations and eschew irrelevant considerations.
“If the Board recommends the release… the same may be forwarded to the Government within 15 days, the Government, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the recommendations from the Board (will) call for opinion of the Presiding Judge in terms of Section 432(2) of the CrPC.
The Presiding Judge to furnish opinion as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the communication from the Government,
“The Government to thereafter make appropriate orders on the issue of premature release of the Petitioner and other convicts, as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the opinion from the Presiding Judge,” the High Court division bench of Justices M S Sonak and Nutan Sardesai ruled.
The court found fault in the decision of the Board in its meeting held on 19.8.2019 to call for opinion of the Presiding Judge of the convicting or confirming court and to place it before the Board for its consideration.
The decision does not appear to be either appropriate or in consonance with the said Rules. There is no requirement under the said rules for obtaining opinion of the Presiding Judge before the Board considers the case of a convict for premature release.
“It is only after the Board makes its recommendation and before the Government takes its decision the appropriate Government may require the Presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state her opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with her reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists,” the court stated.
“We have no hesitation in setting aside the decision of the Board, and direct the Board to once again consider the case of the Petitioner, as also other convicts, referred to in the minutes, for premature release. We direct the Board to complete this exercise as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, within a period of two months from today,” the HC ruled.
The High Court also warned trial court judges, who have to offer their opinion on whether a convict can be released, that they have to offer a proper opinion and not merely refer to previous orders of the Supreme Court or other courts. In this case the Judge merely quoted from a previous SC order which decreed that a convict had no automatic right to release after completion of 14/20 years.
“This is certainly not the manner in which the Presiding Judge is supposed to express her opinion. The Presiding Judge has merely quoted from the decision of the Supreme Court virtually expressed no opinion whatsoever… If this is the opinion, then, perhaps no life convict can ever aspire to premature release, simply because there may be no indefeasible right to release on completion of either 14 years or 20 years, as the case may be. The Presiding Judge has to apply her mind to all relevant considerations and only thereafter, furnish the opinion, together with her reasons for such opinion,” the High Court ruled.
