Gujarat High Court
Chaka @ Savji Banabhai Tank vs State Of Gujarat on 25 September, 2018
Author: A.J.Shastri
Bench: A.J. Shastri
R/SCR.A/8100/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8100 of 2018
===============================================
CHAKA @ SAVJI BANABHAI TANK
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
===============================================
Appearance:
THROUGH JAIL(50) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3
MR.RASHESH RINDANI, APP (2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
===============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI
Date : 25/09/2018
ORAL ORDER
The present application through jail has been submitted by the applicant for the purpose of seeking benefit of remission on the eve of 26th January, 2017 as well as on 15th August, 2018 on the premise mainly that several convicts use to make application to the State Authority on account of aforesaid two events which are always being considered.
For the purpose of examining as to whether the applicant is entitled for such benefit or not, the Court has perused the jail remarks which are placed before it in which it has been found that for the serious offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 25(i) of the Arms Act, the applicant is convicted for life imprisonment and is undergoing sentence. It appears that, on many occasions, the applicant had avoided his surrender and remained absconded for 38 days in 1986 as well as 5772 days for the year 2006. Additionally, jail remarks also indicate that the competent authority has also made remarks that on account of four reasons the applicant is not entitled to seek any remission. Now for that purpose, considering the fact that applicant Page 1 of 2 R/SCR.A/8100/2018 ORDER has remained in jail for a substantial period whether he is entitled or not is to be examined in light of Government Resolutions and the policy framed. The application is attached with the order of conviction coupled with the Government Resolution dated 25.01.2017 as well as 23.01.2014 and while examining the same, it has been found that certain class of prisoners, as shown in Annexure-I, shall not be considered for premature release. Apart from that, Annexure-I has also indicated that prisoners who are involved in serious offences like offences under the provisions of Arms Act, 1959, The Explosive Substance Act, 1908 or under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2008 are not to be considered for that purpose. Additionally, it is also visible from the jail remarks that present applicant has remained absconded for a pretty long period and, therefore also he does not deserve tobe granted benefit of remission. Jail remarks are self-explanatory and hence the authority has appropriately rejected the request. Same is the case with respect to yet another resolution which has been framed for the purpose of grant of remission to the prisoners dated 14.08.2018 has also indicated that the certain class of prisoners shall not be granted remission and in other conditions Chapter - IV Sub-clause (k) has indicated that prisoners who are involved in serious offences like Arms Act shall not be granted remission. Now, in the background of this policy of the State Government, it appears that since the present applicant is convicted for offences punishable under the Arms Act, the applicant rightly has not been granted such benefit. Resultantly, the application being devoid of merits, the same is dismissed hereby.
(A.J.SHASTRI ,J.) dharmendra Page 2 of 2