Constitution of India, 1950
Article 32—Writ—Pre-mature release of convict—Apex Court directed the respondents to reconsider the case of co-accused and directed the Special Judge to provide an opinion afresh accompanied by adequate reasoning after taking into consideration the relevant factors laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, 2000 (7) SCC 626—Special Judge after considering the guidelines opined that sentence of co-accused could be set aside and accordingly recommended to remit his sentence—Since the case of petitioners is also similar to the case of co-accused, in as much as the Presiding Officer’s opinion contained in letters do not contain reasons with regard to the factors to be taken into consideration as laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, 2000 (7) SCC 626—Petitioners’ applications for remission are required to be reconsidered by the respondent authorities afresh—Special Judge directed to provide an opinion on the applications of petitioners afresh by adequate reasoning after taking into consideration the relevant factors that govern the grant of remission as laid down in 2000 (7) SCC 626—After receiving the opinion of the Special Judge, the State shall take a final decision on the petitioners’ applications for remission afresh as expeditiously as possible and not later than one month of receiving the opinion of the Special Judge—Petition allowed. [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 432(2)]
[Paras 5 to 8]
Decision : Petition allowed