Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 53 (0.69 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Chandra Kant Kumar vs The State Of Bihar, Through The Chief ... on 23 October, 2019
It is stated that in the
said case a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner that
one Ajay Kumar Chaudhary a convict under Section 376 IPC was
recommended for premature release in the meeting of the Board
held on07.04.2017 but father of the petitioner of Cr.W.J.C. no. 748
of 2017 (Chandra Kant Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.)
was not recommended. It is submitted that in fact the date of
conviction of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary was 23.09.1997 and in the
proceeding of the Board there were two dates mentioned.
08.04.2003 was the date on which the lower court had issued the
conviction warrant after disposal of Criminal Appeal. Distinction
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1239 of 2022 dt.10-11-2023
8/38
has been sought to be made between the case of Ajay Kumar
Chaudhary and Tribhuwan Sharma who was father of the
petitioner in Cr.W.J.C. no. 748 of 2017. It is not denied that the
State respondents considered the case of the father of the petitioner
in Cr.W.J.C. No. 748 of 2017 and released him. It is also not
denied that in the said case the Hon'ble Division Bench found that
the Remission Board was constituted for the first time in the year
2007, there was no denial of this fact on behalf of the State.
Article 161 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 433 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 72 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 59 in The Prisons Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 364A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 12 January, 1961
8 Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 600 : (1961) 1 Cri LJ 736 : (1961), 3 SCR 440
9 Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107: 1981 SCC (Cri) 112 : (1981) 1 SCR 1196
10 Sambha Ji Krishan Ji v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 196 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 102 : AIR 1974 SC 147
12 Ranjit Singh v. UT of Chandigarh, (1984) 1 SCC 31 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 27
13 Ashok Kumar v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 498 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 845
15 Subhash Chander V. Krishan Lal, (2001) 4 SCC 458 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 735
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1239 of 2022 dt.10-11-2023
34/38
".62. As far as remissions are concerned, it consists of
two types. One type of remission is what is earned by a
prisoner under the Prison Rules or other relevant rules
based on his/her good behaviour or such other
stipulations prescribed therein. The other remission is
the grant of it by the appropriate Government in
exercise of its power under Section 432 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Therefore, in the latter case when a
remission of the substantive sentence is granted under
Section 432, then and then only giving credit to the
earned remission can take place and not otherwise.
Similarly, in the case of a life imprisonment, meaning
thereby the entirety of one's life, unless there is a
commutation of such sentence for any specific period,
there would be no scope to count the earned remission.
In either case, it will again depend upon an answer to
the second part of the first question based on the
principles laid down in Swamy Shraddananda (2)4."
In the aforesaid manner, the first question framed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has been answered.