The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appropriate Government, in the case of a convicted person, is the State where the accused was convicted and sentenced. The judgment also emphasized the discretionary nature of the remission order and the requirement for the State Government to consider the application for remission and provide reasons for its decision.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay K Agrawal, J. - The petitioner is a convicted person and prisoner undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life pursuant to the judgment of conviction recorded and order of sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.378/2002, dated 4th March, 2003 which was duly affirmed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.177/2004. The petitioner after having served 21 years of jail sentence made an application for remission of his sentence through the Superintendent of Central Jail, Raipur on which he (Superintendent of Central Jail, Raipur) called for the recommendation of the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur who, in turn, on 23-2-2017, considering the nature and gravity of the offence of murder which the petitioner is alleged to have committed and undergoing life imprisonment, did not find favour with the application and recommended for not remitting the rest of the sentence awarded to him. Accordingly, the application was thereafter rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police vide Ex.P-1 accepting the recommendation of the Presiding Officer / Court of Sessions which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition branding the same as arbitrary, illegal and without authority of law.

2. Return has been filed by the State stating inter alia that looking to the gravity of the offence which the petitioner has committed, his application for remission has rightly been rejected by the competent authority.

3. Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that merely on the basis of recommendation of the Presiding Officer / Sessions Judge, the application of the petitioner for remission has been rejected by an incompetent authority i.e. the Deputy Inspector General of Police and it has not been considered by the appropriate Government which is an authority competent to decide the application under Section 432(1) of the CrPC. He would further submit that no reasons have been assigned while rejecting the application except accepting the recommendation of the Presiding Judge who had convicted the petitioner, as such, there is no application of mind while rejecting the application. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and others, (2016) 7 SCC 1 .

4. Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Advocate General appearing for the State / respondents, would submit that looking to the gravity of the offence which the petitioner has committed and undergoing sentence, though the Jail Superintendent has recommended for remission of jail sentence considering the good conduct of the petitioner, but the Presiding Judge who has convicted the petitioner did not recommend for the same and therefore his application has rightly been rejected by the competent authority. He would further submit that the petitioner has no vested right to be granted remission and remission of balance sentence cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

6. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice Station 432 of the CrPC which states as under: -

"432. Power to suspend or remit sentences. (1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.

(2) Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused,