Anil @ Pappu Porikar vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(MP) 72

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ, and Vivek Jain, J.
Anil @ Pappu Porikar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Appeals No. 1996 of 2024 and 100 of 2024 (Jabalpur): against the order dated 30.5.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 30228 of 2023 and the order dated 2.11.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 21655 of 2023; Decided on 2.4.2025

Advocates:
Brajesh Kumar Rajak and Rajesh Awasthi for appellant;
Abhijeet Awasthi, Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.

Headnote:
(1) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss. 433 and 433A -- Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -- Ss. 474 and 475 -- remission -- determination of grant or refusal of remission in respect of convict of life imprisonment would be based on remission policy prevalent on date of conviction -- date of conviction is 29.5.2015 -- remission policy of 10.1.2012 would be applicable -- State must strictly abide by terms of its policies, bearing in mind the fundamental principle of law that each case for premature release has to be decided on basis of legal position as it stands on date of conviction -- provisions of law must be applied equally to all persons -- moreover, those provisions have to be applied efficiently and transparently so as to obviate grievance that policy is being applied unevenly to similarly circumstanced persons -- order of single Judge and of authority, declining to grant remission on basis of remission policy dated 22.9.2022, set aside -- since State Government is competent to determine remission and premature release on basis of applicable remission policy, matter remitted to competent authority to reconsider case of petitioners afresh in light of order/remission policy dated 10.1.2012. (2024) 5 SCC 481, (2016) 7 SCC 1 and (2024) 9 SCC 598 followed. 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 140 and (1981) 1 SCC 107 referred to. [Paras 23, 25 & 27]
(2) Sentence -- remission -- decision as to whether remission be granted or not -- is entirely left to discretion of authorities concerned -- this discretion ought to be exercised in manner known to law -- convict only has right to apply to competent authority and have his case considered in fair and reasonable manner -- power of remission always vests with State executive -- Court, at best, can only give direction to consider any claim for remission -- cannot grant any remission and provide for premature release. [Para 24]
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 433 rFkk 433d & ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk] 2023 & /kkjk 474 rFkk 475 & ifjgkj & vkthou dkjkokl ls naMkfn"V fl)nks"k ds laca/k esa ifjgkj dh eatwjh ;k ukeatwjh dk vo/kkj.k nks"kflf) ds fnukad dks çpfyr ifjgkj uhfr ij vk/kkfjr gksxk & nks"kflf) dk fnukad 29-5-2015 & 10-1-2012 dh ifjgkj uhfr ykxw gksxh & jkT; dks] fof/k dk ;g ewy fl)kar /;ku esa j[krs gq, fd le;iwoZ NksM+s tkus ds çR;sd ekeys dk fofu'p;u nks"kflf) ds fnukad dks ;Fkkfo|eku fof/kd fLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkuk gksrk gS] viuh uhfr;ksa ds fuca/kuksa dk vfrfu;efu"Bk ls ikyu djuk vko';d gS & fof/k ds mica/k lHkh O;fä;ksa dks leku :i ls ykxw fd, tkuk vko';d gS & blds vfrfjä] mu mica/kksa dks n{krk vkSj ikjnf'kZrk ls ykxw fd;k tkuk gksrk gS rkfd bl f'kdk;r ls cpk tk lds fd leku ifjfLFkfr;ksa okys O;fä;ksa dks uhfr vleku :i ls ykxw dh tk jgh gS & ifjgkj uhfr fnukad 22-9-2022 ds vk/kkj ij ifjgkj eatwj djus ls bUdkj djus ds ,dy U;k;k/kh'k vkSj çkf/kdkjh ds vkns'k vikLr & jkT; ljdkj ykxw gksus okyh ifjgkj uhfr ds vk/kkj ij ifjgkj rFkk le;iwoZ NksM+s tkus ds çR;sd ekeys dk vo/kkj.k djus ds fy, l{ke gS blfy, vkns'k@ifjgkj uhfr fnukad 10-1-2012 ds çdk'k esa ;kphx.k ds ekeys ij u, fljs ls iqufoZpkj djus ds fy, ekeyk l{ke çkf/kdkjh dks çsf"krA ¼2024½ 5 ,llhlh 481] ¼2016½ 7 ,llhlh 1 rFkk ¼2024½ 9 ,llhlh 598 vuqlfjrA 2011 ¼2½ vkjlhvkj ¼fØfeuy½ 140 rFkk ¼1981½ 1 ,llhlh 107 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 23] 25 ,oa 27½
¼2½ naMkns'k & ifjgkj & bl ckjs esa fofu'p; fd ifjgkj eatwj fd;k tkuk pkfg, ;k ugha & iw.kZr% lac) çkf/kdkfj;ksa ds foosdkf/kdkj esa j[kk x;k gS & ;g foosdkf/kdkj fof/k esa Kkr jhfr esa ç;qä fd;k tkuk pkfg, & fl)nks"k dks l{ke çkf/kdkjh ds le{k vkosnu djus rFkk mlds ekeys ij _tq vkSj ;qfä;qä jhfr esa fopkj fd, tkus ek= dk vf/kdkj gS & ifjgkj dh 'kfä lnSo jkT; dk;Zikfydk esa fufgr gksrh gS & U;k;ky;] vf/kd&ls&vf/kd ifjgkj ds fdlh nkos ij fopkj djus dk gh funs'k ns ldrk gS & ifjgkj eatwj dj le;iwoZ NksM+ ugha ldrkA ¼iSjk 24½

ORDER

Kait, C.J. -- 1. Writ Appeal No.1996/2024 has been filed by the appellant/writ appellant/ petitioner namely Anil @ Pappu Porikar being aggrieved by the order dated 30.5.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition i.e. W.P.No.30228/2023 filed by the petitioner, wherein the challenge was made to the order of the respondent-authorities ies declining to grant remission to the petitioner on the basis of remission policy dated 22.9.2022.

2. Writ Appeal No.100/2024 has been filed by the State being aggrieved by the order dated 2.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition i.e. W.P.No.21655/2023 whereby the matter has been remitted to the authority to reconsider the petitioner's case afresh in light of the order order/remission policy dated 10.1.2012 formulated by the State within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

3. As the issue regarding grant or refusal of remission involves in both the appeals, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

4. The facts leading to petitioner Anil @ Pappu Porikar Porikar are that he was convicted for offence under section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment dated 31.7.1999 passed by the trial Court in Special Case No.2/1999 and for the second time he was also convicted vide judgment dated 29.5.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.161/2008 for offences under sections 148, 302/149 (two counts) and 325/149 (three counts) of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. Against his conviction in Special Case No.2/1999, he approached the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.2122/1999, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.5.2008 of this Court. The SLP bearing Diary No. 27990/2021 filed against this conviction, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 29.11.2021, however the Supreme Court considering the fact that petitioner has already undergone more than 23 years of his incarceration, directed that in case the petitioner files an application for remission before the competent authority, then the same shall be considered as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law. In n pursuance thereof, the petitioner made representation for grant of remission before the concerned authority. However, the petitioner was informed that in the light of Circular dated 22.9.2022 the petitioner is not entitled for remission as he has been convicted twice for commission of offence of murder and he has been awarded life imprisonment by the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for appellant Anil @ Pappu Porikar contended that he was also convicted con by the trial Court in Sessions Trial No.161/2008 for offences under section 148, 302/149 (two counts) and 325/149 (three counts) vide judgment dated 29.5.2015 and sentenced to life imprisonment. Against the said judgment, a criminal appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No.2306/2015 is still pending though the writ petitioner was as granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2016. Hence he is on bail in connection with Sessions Trial No.161/2008.

6. Further the submission of the learned counsel for appellant appellant/writ petitioner is that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dismissing his petition tion is illegal and arbitrary. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Narayan Dutt and others v. State of Pun Punjab and another 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 140, Maru Ram v. Union of India reported in (1981) 1 SCC 107 and Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India and others in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.491/2022, vide judgment dated 8.1.2024 [reported in (2024) 5 SCC 481] to contend that premature release of a convict could not be withheld only for the reason that an appeal against the conviction is pending before the Appellate Court. The aaward ward of sentence is a judicial function unction but the execution of the sentence,, after the pronouncement of the Court, is ordinarily a matter for the executive under the C