Legal Provisions of Section 432 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India.
This section deals with the remission and suspension of sentences. Remission implies cutting short the sentence to the period already undergone and wiping out the remaining sentence which has not been served out. But such remission or suspension does not in any way interfere with the order of conviction passed by the Court it only affects the execution of the sentence.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The power to remit or suspend the sentence under this section is vested in the Government. The power is discretionary and the Government is not required to record reasons for remitting the unexpired portion of the sentence in the remission order.
However, it does not mean that the Government may use (misuse) the power for personal vendetta or favouritism. An order of remission or suspension issued on extraneous and unreasonable grounds will vitiate the exercise of power under this section. It has been held that the exercise of power under Section 432 is subject to judicial review.
Image Source : luna.edu
Section 432 empowers the appropriate Government to remit wholly a partly the sentence of fine which is a substantive sentence but not the sentence of imprisonment in default of fine which is not a substantive sentence, it being only a contingent imprisonment. It can be avoided by payment of fine.
The Constitution of India confers power on the Head of the State to tender pardons and reprieves at any stage and even before conviction. Under Article 161, the Head of the Executive may grant pardon to a prisoner who is condemned to death even during the pendency of appeal in the Supreme Court in exercise of its mercy jurisdiction.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Where a State granted certain remission to prisoners belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes only and denied the same to other caste prisoners, such remission was held to be discriminatory and, therefore, violative of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Singh, held that the power to grant remission is no doubt discretionary but it is subject to constitutional rights of prisoners and cannot be used so as to discriminate the prisoners exclusively on the basis of caste or race. The Court further observed that special remission granted to prisoners of SC & ST bears no reasonable nexus with the advancement of these Castes and Tribes and, therefore, does not qualify for protection under Article 15 (4) of the Constitution. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had suggested that if the State Government wanted to grant remission to SC/ST prisoners at any cost, it should extend similar benefit to other caste prisoners as well. But the Apex Court did not approve this reasoning of the High Court and the order of remission was held to be invalid.
As regards the sentence of imprisonment for life, a person so sentenced may be detained to serve the life-term in prison unless his sentence is commuted or remitted by the Government in exercise of its powers under Sections 432-433 of the Code. The Court has no interference in the matter of remission of the sentence of lifers.
The Courts have no role to play in the matter of granting remission or commutation of sentences, it being left to the exclusive power of the Government. The Court becomes functus officio after awarding conviction and imposing the sentence. The execution of the sentence is the function entrusted to the Government and suspension, remission or commutation constitute a part of such execution of sentences.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Therefore, the Court while awarding the sentence of imprisonment for life cannot specify in the order a particular minimum term of imprisonment which the convicted person must undergo before he is allowed remission or a release from jail. Any such direction of the Court would be violative of the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court in Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, has observed that petitions filed under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India or under Sections 432 and 433 of CrPC must be disposed of expeditiously, within a period of three months so that the public confidence in the administration of criminal justice is not shaken due to inordinate delays and laches.
The expression appropriate Government used in Section 432 or 433 refers to the State in which the prisoner has been convicted and sentenced and only such Government has the power to remit or suspend the sentence, and not the State where the prisoner might have been subsequently transferred, or where the offence is committed.
The Supreme Court has ruled that in respect of offences under Sections 489-A and 489D IPC which relate to currency notes and Bank notes, the Central Government would be the appropriate Government for the purpose of Section 432, CrPC.