IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the convict has no right to remission but only the right to claim remission. The judgment emphasized that the decision whether remissions be granted or not is entirely left to the discretion of authorities concerned, which discretion ought to be exercised in a manner known to law.

ORDER :

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for respective parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing today.

2. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.03.2023 bearing No.JLK/832022/3121/J, passed by the Department of Home, Government of Gujarat, whereby the petitioner has been denied remission under Section 432 of the CrPC.

3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. I.H. Syed assisted by learned advocate Mr. Prithu Parimal for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. Manan Maheta for respondent – State of Gujarat.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner was convicted in connection with TADA Case No.176 of 1993 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 34 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conviction, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.705/2007 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and confirm the sentence imposed by the Special TADA Court. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Special Criminal Application No.6975/2021 before this Court seeking release in connection with the TADA Case No.176 of 1993 to consider remission application of the present petitioner in accordance with policy prevailing at the time of the conviction of the petitioner. The coordinate Bench has been pleased to hold that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered in accordance with 1992 policy instead of new policy of 2014.

4.1 Further, it is the case of the petitioner that time and again the petitioner is enlarged on long parole leave and is already on parole. As the petitioner has approached the respondent authority for remission, the respondent authority without assigning any reason refused the remission application submitted by the petitioner vide order dated 20.03.2023 contrary to the opinion of the Committee as well as the Home Department. The Authority has not considered any reason or opinion which came to be opined in favor of the petitioner. Merely based on the fact that the life imprisonment means 20 years or for life. The CBI Office has also on their own interpreted the order of the learned Sessions Judge. The jail conduct of the petitioner is good and though the petitioner was on parole leave, it is stated that the petitioner remained absconding and on flimsy ground the benefit of remission is not extended and mechanically his application for remission came to be dismissed. The petitioner has spent more than 18 years in jail and he is entitled for remission. Even, considering the calculation submitted by the Authority, 802 days are for pardon which reveals from the reply given by the Authority under the Right to Information Act. Even, considering the said reply itself, it reveals that the petitioner has undergone more than 15 years 3 months and 27 days of sentence and the petitioner is entitled for pardon of 802 days and learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on Rule 1420 of the Jail Manual which provides for entitlement of prisoners for remission. Certain days are required to be considered for remission as per the Jail Manual itself. In the case of death penalty when sentence was for life or for 20 years then there was a fixed term. Herein, petitioner has served more than 14 years and is therefore, entitled for remission. Even, the petitioner is suffering from various age related ailments and he has requested to allow the present petition. Further, he has submitted that opinion of Judge is not binding to the Authority. The authority has to decide independently the case on its own me