Chattisgarh High Court
Pursottam @ Pustam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 August, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 601 of 2022
1. Pursottam @ Pustam S/o Sadhu Yadav Aged About 48 Years Occupation
Agriculture R/o Village Chulhapani Police Station Narayanpur, District Jashpur
Chhattisgarh Through His Son In Law Kumar Prasad Yadav S/o Dwarika Prasad
Yadav Aged 36 Years, R/o Ghoghar Tahsil Bagicha, District : Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner/Detainee
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Home (Jail) Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Secretary Law Department Atal Nagar New Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur.
3. Director General Jail And Reform Services Chhattisgarh Raipur Ministry Of Jail
Department Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur.
4. Jail Suprintendent Central Jail Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur),
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner/Detainee : Shri Shubham Tripathi, Advocate.
For Respondents/State : Shri Chitendra Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order on Board
23/08/2022
1. Heard.
2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India along
with Section 432 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 has been instituted by the
petitioner/detainee, who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life
upon being convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections
302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 30-03-2007
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial
No.06/2007. Being aggrieved against the impugned judgment dated
30-03-2007, the petitioner had preferred Criminal appeal No.512/2007
before this Court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 07-11-2012.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
sentenced for life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and he is serving jail sentence for last about more than
nineteen years, hence, he moved an application for grant of remission to
respondents authorities, but the same has not been decided yet. It is
further submitted that it seems that since the concerning Presiding Judge
has given negative opinion in respect of grant of remission to the petitioner,
respondent authorities have not decided his application for grant of
remission. Hence, the petition may be disposed of by directing respondent
authorities to decide the remission application of petitioner expeditiously.
4. Learned State counsel conceded the submission of counsel for the
petitioner that remission application of petitioner has not been decided yet.
5. Considered the submission and perused the material available on record.
6. On perusal of record and as per submission of counsel for the petitioner, it
appears that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under
Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and serving life sentence in
the jail. Perusal of documents enclosed with the petition would go to show
that the petitioner is languishing in jail for more than nineteen years,
despite that his remission application has not been decided by the
respondent authorities. Therefore, respondent authorities are directed to
decide remission application filed by the petitioner as early as possible
preferably within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
7. It is made clear that if required, respondent authorities may further seek
opinion of Presiding Judge of concerned Court under Section 432 of the
Cr.P.C. in view of judgment passed by this Court in WPCR No.755/2021
([email protected] Abrar Ahmad Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) and in turn, the
Presiding Judge may reconsider his opinion without being influenced by his
earlier opinion, considering the observation made by this Court in aforesaid
writ petition.
8. In view of above, the present WPCR is disposed of with liberty that the
petitioner may revive his prayer afresh, if his grievance still subsist.
SD/-
(N.K.Chandravanshi)
Judge
Amardeep
