IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 13899 of 2025 ==========================================================

VIMALBHAI MAGANBHAI RAMANI Versus SECRETARY, HOME DEPT. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

BHAVIN B THAKAR(9371) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 14/10/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w section 473, 474(e) of the BNSS, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside order dated 7.3.2025 passed by the respondent authority at Annexure A and further be pleased to direct the respondent authority to release the petitioner by considering remission.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302, 120B, 201, 109 and 188 of the IPC r/w section 135 of the GP Act by the learned Fast Track Court No.2, Sessions Court, Rajkot vide order dated 14.9.2010, against which, the petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2011 before this Court, which was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 23.11.2015. He would further submit that the petitioner preferred an application for remission after passing of long incarceration before the respondent authority. However, the respondent authority has passed the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner for remission without applying mind and hence, it is arbitrary order in the eye of law. He would further submit that the petitioner has undergone imprisonment of nearly 15 years and therefore, the petitioner was entitled for remission, but the respondent authority decided the application adversely without giving any reason.

2.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner requests to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent authority and to release the petitioner by considering remission.

3. On the other hand, learned APP would submit that this Court cannot exercise appellate or revisional jurisdiction over the order passed by the State Government nor to extend benefit of remission to the petitioner. He would further submit that reasoned order has been passed by the respondent authority i.e. Home Department after taking opinion from all concerns and therefore, looking to all aspects, the impugned order is not arbitrary.

3.1 Upon above submissions, learned APP requests to dismiss the petition.

4. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides, at the outset, worthy assistance can be made to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court (J.B. Pardiwala, J, as he then was) in case of Harishankar Gayaprasad Jaiswal Versus State Of Gujarat, 2018 AIJEL-HC 239908, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has examined the scope of section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is pari materia to the provisions of sections 473 and 474 of the BNSS vis-a-vis the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to intervene in the order of the State Government and to extend remission while looking at Articles 161 and 226 of the Constitution of India. Plethora of authorities were surveyed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and summarized the discussion as under:-

“78. Let me now summarise the aforesaid discussion:

[1] The imprisonment for life in terms of Section 53 read with Section 45 of the Penal Code means "the imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict". To put it in other words, till the convict breathes his last.

[2] The grant of remission is a matter of policy and it is for the Executive Branch of the Government to decide as to when, to what extent and in what manner, remission is to be granted.

[3] The policy decision may be based on so many factors, like the prevailing general law