https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457596 Article 32 was treated as an available remedy to challenge allegedly unlawful remission orders affecting Articles 14 and 21, and the victim's petition was held maintainable despite the existence of Article 226. The "appropriate Government" for remission under Section 432(7) CrPC was construed as the Government of the State where the offender was sentenced, so Gujarat lacked jurisdiction because the trial and conviction were in Mumbai. The mandatory safeguard under Section 432(2) CrPC required consideration of the convicting court's reasoned opinion; that safeguard was not properly followed, and the unpaid fine and default sentence were ignored. The remission orders were therefore quashed as illegal and a nullity. en-us Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2024 20:31:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457596 Article 32 was treated as an available remedy to challenge allegedly unlawful remission orders affecting Articles 14 and 21, and the victim's petition was held maintainable despite the existence of Article 226. The "appropriate Government" for remission under Section 432(7) CrPC was construed as the Government of the State where the offender was sentenced, so Gujarat lacked jurisdiction because the trial and conviction were in Mumbai. The mandatory safeguard under Section 432(2) CrPC required consideration of the convicting court's reasoned opinion; that safeguard was not properly followed, and the unpaid fine and default sentence were ignored. The remission orders were therefore quashed as illegal and a nullity. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457596