Remission classification based on offence gravity upheld; Section 433A does not remove the Government's class-based remission power.

A remission policy may validly exclude classes of convicts where the classification is based on intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the object of the policy. Offences such as rape, dowry death, murder of a child, dacoity, robbery, offences against the State, and serious special enactment offences were treated as grave enough to justify exclusion from remission without offending Article 14. Section 432 was treated as a broad power to suspend, remit or commute sentences, while Section 433A was held to impose only a limited statutory bar in specified cases and not to extinguish the Government's power to frame a rational class-based remission policy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government's exclusion of specified categories of convicts from a general remission notification violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 curtailed the State's power under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to grant or withhold remission to classes of convicts.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government's exclusion of specified categories of convicts from a general remission notification violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The classification was examined on the touchstone of intelligible differentia and rational nexus. Offences such as rape, dowry death, murder of a child, dacoity, robbery, offences against the State, and serious offences under special enactments were treated as grave offences affecting society and the security of the State. The gravity of the offence was held to be a permissible basis for distinguishing between classes of prisoners for the purpose of remission.

Conclusion: The exclusion of those categories from the benefit of remission was held to be a valid classification and not violative of Article 14.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 curtailed the State's power under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to grant or withhold remission to classes of convicts.

Analysis: Section 432 was treated as a broad enabling provision conferring power on the appropriate Government to suspend, remit, or commute sentences with or without conditions. Section 433A was held to impose only a restricted statutory bar in specified cases and not to take away the Government's power to make a valid class-based remission policy under Section 432.

Conclusion: The State's power to exclude a valid class of prisoners from remission was upheld, and Section 433A was held not to denude that power beyond its own terms.

Final Conclusion: The remission classification was sustained, and the State's authority to frame a valid exclusionary policy under the remission power was affirmed, though the relief already granted to the respondent was not disturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A remission policy may validly classify convicts on the basis of the gravity and societal impact of the offence, and the statutory restriction in Section 433A does not eliminate the Government's general power under Section 432 to grant or deny remission to a rationally defined class of prisoners.

---