Only Govt can remit convict’s term — SC

"Imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted person’s natural life," the Bench said.

During the imprisonment period, a convict might earn remissions under the Prison Rules "but such remissions in the absence of an order of an appropriate Government remitting the entire balance of his sentence the convict is not entitled to be released automatically before the full life term is served", the Bench said.

These observations came on a petition filed by a life convict, Laxman Naskar, who pleaded for his release on the ground that he had already been in prison for over 23 years and that under West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992, he should have been released after serving 20 years imprisonment.

The Court said "Solely on the basis of completion of a term in jail serving imprisonment and remissions earned under the relevant rules or law will not entitle an automatic release, but the appropriate Government must pass a separate order remitting the unexpired portion of the sentence."

The Court recalled that it had passed an order on February 15 this year directing the West Bengal Government to reconsider the cases for premature release of all life convicts who had approached the court earlier.

The Government, pursuant to the direction, constituted a committee of top police officials of the State headed by the Home Secretary, for review of the cases.

The Court had also issued a guideline on the basis of which the Committee could consider premature release of the life convicts.

In Naskar’s case, the jail authorities were in favour of the petitioner’s release but the review Committee rejected his plea for release. The reasons given by the Committee were witnesses in the case feared early release of the convict; petitioner being 43 years of age was potential of committing crime; and the incident in relation to which the crime had occurred was the sequel of the political feud affecting the society at large.

Rejecting the reasons given by the Committee denying early release to Naskar, the bench said: "If we look at the reasons given by the Government, we are afraid that the same are palpably irrelevant or devoid of substance."

Quashing the order of the Government, the bench directed it to reconsider Naskar’s case in the light of the guidelines issued by the Court earlier.