Chattisgarh High Court
Noora @ Nooruddin vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 September, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 274 of 2022
• Noora @ Nooruddin S/o Ishthar Ahmad Aged About 40 Years
R/o Village Kamhariya, Police Station Maudaha, District
Hamirpur, Uttar Pradesh. Present Resident Subhash Nagar,
Police Station Maudahapara Raipur, District Raipur, CG
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Police Station
And Post Rakhi, District Raipur, CG
2. The Secretary, Department Of Home And Police Affairs,
Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Police Station
And Post Rakhi, District Raipur, CG
3. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Raipur, Police Station And Post Rakhi, District
Raipur, CG
4. Director General Prisons, The Jail And Correctional Service
Chhattisgarh, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur, CG
5. Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Raipur, District Raipur, CG
---- Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri Badruddin Khan, Adv.
For respondents/State : Shri Chitendra Singh, PL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order On Board
21.9.2022
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been instituted by the petitioner, who is undergoing sentence
of imprisonment for life upon being convicted for commission of
offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 320/149, 120-B and 302
of IPC vide judgment dated 8-3-2007 passed by 12th Addl. Sessions
Judge (FTC), Raipur in Session Case No.44/2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been sentenced for life imprisonment for the offence under
Section 302 IPC and he is serving jail sentence for more than 15
years, hence, he moved an application for grant of remission to the
respondent 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, the respondent authorities have not decided his
application for grant of remission. Hence, the petition may be
disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to decide the
remission application of the petitioner expeditiously.
3. Learned counsel for the State conceded the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner that remission application of the
petitioner has not been decided yet.
4. Considered the submission and perused the material
available on record.
5. On perusal of the record and as per submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has been
convicted under Sections 147, 148, 320/149, 120-B and 302 of IPC
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 15 years, despite that his remission application has
not been decided by the respondent authorities. Therefore, the
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.
6. It is made clear that if required, the respondent authorities
may further seek opinion of the Presiding Judge of concerned Court
under Section 432 of the CrPC in view of judgment passed by this
Court in WPCR No.755/2021 (Madari @ Abrar Ahmad vs. State of
Chhattisgarh & Ors.) 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.
7. 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
pathak/-
