Legally Speaking

Where the crime was committed the remission or premature release policy of the state has to be considered: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in the case Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah, Lala Vakil vs State of Gujarat observed that where the crime was committed has to be considered in the remission or pre­mature release in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State.

While allowing the writ petition the court observed and contended that Once the crime was committed in the State of Gujarat, after the trial been concluded and judgment of conviction came to be passed, all further proceedings have to be 6 considered including remission or pre­mature release in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State of Gujarat where the crime was committed and not the State where the trial stands transferred and concluded for exceptional reasons under the orders of this Court, as the case may be. The court further stated that under Section 432(7) CrPC the appropriate Government can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments.

the appropriate Government in the ordinary course would be the State of Gujarat. But the case was transferred in exceptional circumstances by this Court for limited purpose for trial and disposal to the neighboring State i.e., the State of Maharashtra by an order dated 06.08.2004. ordinarily, the trial was to be concluded in the same State and in terms of Section 432(7) CrPC as the crime in the instant case was admittedly committed in the State of Gujarat, observed by the Apex Court.

he application for pre­mature release has to be filed in the State of Maharashtra and not in the State of Gujarat, as prayed by the petitioner by judgment impugned dated 17.07.2009 As His petition filed in the High Court of Gujarat was dismissed taking note of Section 432(7) CrPC on the premise that since the trial has been concluded in the State of Maharashtra. Thereafter He had filed his petition for pre­mature release under Sections 433 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stating that he had undergone more than 15 years 4 months of custody.

The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and the justice Vikram Nath observed and noted that under Section 432(7) CrPC can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments of the appropriate Government.

PRANSHI AGARWAL

Recent Posts

Russia Targets Ukraine’s Power Grid Again With Massive Missile And Drone Strikes

Over 40 missiles and 70 drones hit Ukraine's energy facilities, targeting gas infrastructure. Despite air…

1 hour ago

Look At Global Leaders Reaction To Gaza Ceasefire Deal After 15-Month Conflict

World leaders, including President Biden, UN Secretary-General Guterres, and European officials, welcomed the ceasefire deal,…

2 hours ago

Cristiano Ronaldo Set To Extend Saudi Arabia Stay Becomes Co-Owner Of Al Nassr: Report

Cristiano Ronaldo’s new contract with Al Nassr will not only keep him at the club…

2 hours ago

Missi Roti Sparks Global Debate After Being Ranked Among World’s Worst Foods

Missi Roti, a nutritious Indian flatbread, ranks 56th on Taste Atlas' 'worst foods' list, causing…

2 hours ago

South Africa’s Illegal Gold Mine Crackdown Kills 78, Hundreds Rescued

South African authorities rescued 246 survivors and recovered 78 bodies from an illegal gold mine.…

2 hours ago

Micheal Martin Set To Lead Ireland Again As Prime Minister In New Coalition Deal

Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin is set to reclaim Ireland’s premiership under a new coalition…

3 hours ago