Petitioner Side[1]

Team Code-
CHHATRAPATI SHRI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ FIFTH STATE LEVEL MOOT

COURT COMPETITION - 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIYANA
WRIT JURISDICTION
UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
INDRAYANI N.G.O.............. PETITIONERS

STATE OF GUJRANA ............RESPONDENTS
ON SUBMISSION TO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINA)) NO. ___________/ 2024

MEMORIAL FROM THE SIDE OF UNION OF INDRAYANI
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

CHHATRAPATI SHRI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ FIFTH STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Table of Contents
Sr. No. LIST OF CONTENT Page no.
1. LIST OF ABBREVATIONS 02
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 03
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 04
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 05
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 07
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 08
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10
8. PRAYER 27
1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
HC High Court
Govt Government
Ors. Others
Hon’ble Honourable
Art Article
SCC Supreme Court Case
No. Number
UOI Union of India
v. Versus
2
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
1. STATUTES
1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. Gujarat Remission Policy, 1992
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2. CASES
1. Satpal vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 170………………………………………....11

2. Mohammed Ishaq vs. S. Kazam Pasha, (2009) 12 SCC 748 …………………………..11
3. Epuru Sudhakar & Anr vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors on 11 October, 2006………………….11
4. B.P. Singhal vs Union of India……………………………………………………….....12
5. A.R. Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Ors……………………………..13
6. Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni and Ors. Vs. The State of Madras and Ors…..13
7. Sangeet vs. State of Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452………………………………………..15
8. Hanumant Dass vs Vinay Kumar & Ors on 5 April, 1982……………………………...16
9. State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ratan Singh & Ors on 5 May, 1976……………………...17
10. Union Of India vs V. Sriharan @ ,Murugan & Ors on 2 December, 2015……………..19
11. Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra…………………………...21
12. Sangeet; and Ram Chander vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 12 SCC…………………25
3. WEBSITE
1. www.aironline.com
2. www.scconline.com
3. www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in
3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The ‘Petitioner’ submits this to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indriyani
under
Art. 32 of the Constitution of India.
Art. 32 in Constitution of India:
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto
and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 )
and ( 2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local
limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court
under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution.
4
STATEMENT OF FACTS ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONER
 In 2002, violent riots broke out in Gujrana following the burning of the
Sabarmati Express Train, resulting in the reported deaths of over 1000
individuals.
 Sharifa Bano, along with her family, including her three-year-old daughter
Saniya, fled their village of Dharampur to escape the violence spreading in
Gaya.
 On March 3, 2002, while fleeing, Sharifa Bano's family was attacked by a
group of 20-30 individuals armed with weapons such as stickles, swords, and
sticks in Rampur village near Adilabad.
 During the attack, Sharifa Bano, who was 21 years old and five months
pregnant at the time, was among three women brutally gang-raped by the
assailants. Additionally, her three-year-old daughter, Saniya, was killed as her
head was smashed.
 Seven members of Sharifa Bano's family were found dead, while six were
reported missing. Only Sharifa Bano and a two-year-old child survived the
vicious assault.
 Sharifa Bano, nearly naked, managed to reach the local Police Station in
Limbgaon to register the case. However, the FIR failed to mention her rape,
and despite her identification of 12 assailants, they were not named in the
report.
 Due to death threats against Sharifa Bano, the trial was relocated from
Gujrana to Mahadesham. The charge sheet was filed against 20 individuals,
including six police officers and two government doctors.
 The trial lasted six years in the Special Court of CBI Mumbra, culminating in
the conviction of 11 accused individuals, including a Head Constable, for
gang rape and murder. The court also found six individuals not guilty due to
5

lack of evidence, while charges against two accused were abated due to their
deaths.
 The convictions were upheld by both the High Court and the Supreme Court
of Indiyana. Consequently, all convicted individuals are serving life
imprisonment in Rajkot Jail, Gujrana.
 Subsequently, Mahesh Vora and others sought remission of the sentences
from the Gujrana Government, which was granted according to legal
provisions.
 Indrayani N.G.O. challenged this decision by filing a Writ Petition in the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiyana
6
ISSUES RAISED
1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIYANA ?
2. WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE GUJRANA GOVERNMENT IS LEGAL
AND CORRECT IN VIEW OF LAW?
3. WHETHER THE DECISION GIVEN BY GUJRANA GOVERNMENT
VIOLATES THE SPIRIT AND CONTEXT OF THE PROVISION OF
SECT.432 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973?
7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1.Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

Indiyana ?
The writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution by Indrayani N.G.O seeks
to uphold fundamental rights, particularly those of Sharifa Bano, who suffered injustices. It
challenges the grant of remission by the state government, which can be reviewed by the
Supreme Court. The petition argues that the grant of remission violates fundamental legal
principles and constitutional provisions, warranting a writ of certiorari. The petition asserts
that Article 32 allows direct recourse to the Supreme Court when fundamental rights are
violated. Moreover, it cites legal precedents and principles, including Public Interest
Litigation, to justify the third-party involvement of Indrayani N.G.O. The petition argues that
the N.G.O.'s action is grounded in the duty to promote harmony, brotherhood, and the rule of
law, making it maintainable. Overall, the petition seeks to rectify an arbitrary decision and
uphold the rule of law in the interest of justice and public welfare.
2. Whether the decision of the Gujrana Government is legal and correct in view of law
?
The legality of remission orders by the Gujrana Government is analyzed through the
interpretation of "appropriate Government" in Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code
(CrPC). It is argued that the government of the state where the offender was sentenced holds
jurisdiction over remission decisions, regardless of the location of the crime or imprisonment.
Citing legal precedents such as Ratan Singh, Hanumant Dass, M.T. Khan, and V. Sriharan, it
is established that the state of sentencing is the appropriate government for considering
remission. Therefore, the State of Mumbara, where the offenders were sentenced, holds
authority to entertain remission applications. Consequently, remission orders issued by the
State of Gujrana lack jurisdiction and are deemed legally void, necessitating their
cancellation.
8
3. Whether the decision given by Gujrana Government violates the spirit and context
of the provision of Sect.432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
Section 432(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, grants the "appropriate Government"
the authority to suspend or remit sentences without conditions or upon the acceptance of the
sentenced person. This term refers to the state government where the offender was sentenced,
as clarified in subsection (7). Irrelevant factors such as the location of the crime or
imprisonment do not affect this determination. Relying on legal precedents like State of M.P.
vs. Ratan Singh and Government of A.P. vs. M.T. Khan, it is established that the state of
sentencing holds jurisdiction over remission decisions. Therefore, the State of Mumbara has
the authority to consider remission applications for the accused, not the State of Gujrana.
Additionally, any remission policy of Gujrana is inapplicable, as the State of Maharashtra's
policy governs the situation. Furthermore, under CrPC section 432(2), the opinion of the
presiding judge must be sought before granting remission, which was not done in this case.
Consequently, the Gujarat Government's remission orders violate legal principles and should
be invalidated. The matter should be referred to the appropriate authority in Maharashtra for
reconsideration.
9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Issue 1 - Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable in the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of Indiyana ?
1.1 It is most respectfully submitted that, Article 32 of the Constitution serves as a

cornerstone of our legal framework, ensuring the enforcement of fundamental
rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. These fundamental rights are not
merely individual entitlements but represent the collective values of justice, liberty,
equality, and fraternity, as articulated in the Preamble. Article 32, seeks to uphold
these constitutional ideals and ensure that justice is served to those whose rights
have been violated.
1.2 The rights of Sharifa Bano, who suffered grave injustices during the unfortunate
incident, are at stake. By filing the writ petition, my client is effectively
championing the cause of justice and seeking redress for the violation of Sharifa
Bano's fundamental rights under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and
Article 14 (right to equality and equal protection of laws).
1.3 It is most respectfully submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that when a state
government grants remission of a sentence to a prisoner in Indiyana, such an action
can be challenged in the Supreme Court. The appropriate legal recourse for such a
challenge would typically involve filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Indian Constitution. This provision allows individuals to directly approach the
Supreme Court to protect their Fundamental Rights.
1.4 It is most respectfully submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the order of grant
of remission being an administrative order, there was neither a statutory nor
substantive right of appeal available to the aggrieved parties. The only remedy
available was to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the
High Court of Gujarana, or to file a writ petition before this Court under Article 32
of the Constitution.
1.5 It is most respectfully submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that this Court has on
10
multiple occasions entertained writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution

in those cases where there existed a “gross violation of fundamental rights”, or
when an executive or administrative decision “shocked the conscience of the
public, the nation or of this Court”. In this context, reliance is placed by the
Petitionner on the judgments of this Court in Epuru Sudhakar1; Satpal vs. State
of Haryana,2(“Satpal”) and Mohammed Ishaq vs. S. Kazam Pasha3. It was
submitted that a similar issue of maintainability arose in Mohammed Ishaq,
wherein this Court observed that the mere existence of an alternative remedy in the
form of Article 226 does not preclude an aggrieved person from approaching this
Court directly under Article 32. The rule requiring the exhaustion of alternative
remedies was described as being one of “convenience and discretion” as opposed
to being absolute or inflexible in nature.
1.6 The ratio laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Satpal vs State of Haryana is –
a. ..the said power being a constitutional power conferred
upon the Governor by the Constitution is amenable to
judicial review on certain limited grounds. The Court,
therefore, would be justified in interfering with an order
passed by the Governor in exercise of power under Article
161 of the Constitution if the Governor is found to have
exercised the power himself without being advised by the
Government or if the Governor transgresses the
jurisdiction in exercising the same or it is established that
the Governor has passed the order without application of
mind or the order in question is mala fide one or the
Governor has passed the order on some extraneous
consideration.
1.7 The Petitioner most humbly submits that the power vested in the Governor by the
Constitution, specifically under Article 161, is subject to judicial review on specific
1
MANU/SC/4440/2006
2 (2000) 5 SCC 170
3 ,3 (2009) 12 SCC 748
11
grounds. This review is crucial to ensure the proper exercise of authority and to
prevent any misuse or arbitrary actions by the Governor. The Court holds the
authority to intervene if it finds that the Governor has acted independently, without
the advice of the Government, or has overstepped their jurisdiction. Moreover, if
the decision lacks proper consideration, is driven by malice, or influenced by
extraneous factors, the Court is justified in interfering with the Governor's order.
This principle underscores the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring
the accountability of governmental powers. Similarly, in the context of IPC
provisions related to remissions, the courts maintain the authority to review
decisions regarding sentence reductions. If the remission is granted unlawfully,
exceeds legal boundaries, or is influenced by improper motives, the courts can
intervene to safeguard the integrity of the legal system. Thus, both instances
emphasize the necessity of judicial oversight to uphold justice, fairness, and the
principles enshrined in the Constitution.
1.8 It is most respectfully submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that based on the
Supreme Court decision dated 1/12/1988 -Petitions against atrocities on women, in
particular harassment of bride, bride-burning , rape, murder, or petitions from riot
victims comes under the Public Interest Litigation. With reference to case B.P.
Singhal vs Union of India even when no specific legal injury is caused to a person
or to a determinate class or group of persons by an act or omission of the State or
any public authority but when an injury is caused to public interest, a concerned
citizen can maintain an action for vindicating the rule of law and setting aside the
unlawful action or enforcing the performance of public duty. The same is produced
below-
1. cases may arise where there is undoubtedly public injury by the
act or omission of the State or a public authority but such act or
omission also causes a specific legal injury to an individual or to
a specific class or group of individuals. In such cases, a member
of the public having sufficient interest can certainly maintain an
action challenging the legality of such act or omission, but if the
person on specific class or group of persons who are primarily
12
injured as a result of such act or omission, do not wish to claim

any relief and accept such act or omission willingly and without
protect, the member of the public who complains of a secondary
public injury cannot maintain the action, for the effect of
entertaining the action at the instance of such member of the
public would be to foist a relief on the person or specific class or
group of persons primarily injured, which they do not want.
1.9 It is submitted that, the locus to file this petition as a bona fide person and citizen
of India. That the petitioner seeks to discharge her fundamental duty under Article
51A(e) of the Constitution of India, seeking to promote harmony and the spirit of
brotherhood amongst the people of India, as well as to denounce the derogation of
the dignity of women. That the petitioner seeks to uphold the rule of law and thus
is not a mere busybody.
1.10 The Petitioner furthermore relies upon A.R. Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas
Nayak and Ors.4 .
1. It is a well recognised principle of criminal jurisprudence that
anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion except where
the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the
contrary. The scheme of the CrPC envisages two parallel and
independent agencies for taking criminal offences to court. Even
for the most serious offence of murder, it was not disputed that a
private complaint can, not only be filed but can be entertained
and proceeded with according to law. Locus standi of the
complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence save
and except that where the statute creating an offence provides for
the eligibility of the complainant, by necessary implication the
general principle gets excluded
1.11 The Petitioner in order to buttress the answer regarding the geniuses of public
interest relies upon the ration laid down in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni and
4
MANU/SC/0082/1984
13

Ors. Vs. The State of Madras and Ors.5 -
1. It is in the interests of the general public or in the public interest

that all classes of the citizens of India are content and that their
grievances should be removed. A festering sore on the human
body may eventually affect the whole body though at first its effect
is localized. Grievances or discontent in some particular area or
in some State or in some class of persons may eventually affect
the whole Republic of India, though originally the effects might
be limited. The removal of any grievance, abuse or discontent is
a matter not only where the discontent or grievance is genuine it
may well be in the public interest to remove such, though the
public in other parts of India may not be directly affected. It is in
the public interest that persons should be governed justly and well
and removal of hardship and grievances of a particular class is I
think clearly a matter of public interest
1.12 In light of the aforementioned legal precedents and principles, the writ petition
filed by Indriyani N.G.O, as a third party, is deemed maintainable. It serves the
purpose of addressing public interest concerns and seeks to rectify an arbitrary
decision that undermines the rule of law. As such, the petition warrants
consideration and further proceedings in accordance with the principles of Public
Interest Litigation. The impugned decision of granting remission to the convicts
violates rule of law, is arbitrary and not based on any relevant consideration.
Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner in public interest is maintainable.
5
MANU/SC/0019/1960
14
ISSUE 2- WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE GUJRANA GOVERNMENT IS

LEGAL AND CORRECT IN VIEW OF LAW ?
2.1 It is submitted that, in analyzing the legality and correctness of the decision of the
Gujrana Government regarding the remission orders for accused, the pivotal
consideration lies in the interpretation of the term "appropriate Government" as
outlined in sub-section (7) of Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The essence of "appropriate Government" elucidated in sub-section (1) of Section 432
underscores the authority vested in the government of the state where the offender is
sentenced to make decisions pertaining to suspension or remission of sentences. This
implies that the state government where the sentencing occurred holds the jurisdiction
to entertain applications for remission and issue corresponding orders.
2.2 It is most respectfully submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the consistency in
defining the "appropriate Government," particularly emphasized in claus (b) of sub-
section (7) of Section 432, underscores the legislative intent to designate the
government of the state where the offender underwent trial and received sentencing
as the competent authority to consider remission applications. Notably, factors such
as the location of the crime or the convict's place of imprisonment are deemed
irrelevant in determining the appropriate government. Even in instances where the
trial and investigation were transferred to another state, as in the present case where
proceedings were moved from Gujrana to Mumbra, the authority to entertain
remission applications remains with the state where the sentencing was finalized.
2.3 It is submitted that since the ‘appropriate government’ in the instant case is the State
of Mahadesham, the remission policy of the State of Mahadesham would be
applicable. Thus, the remission policy of the State of Gujrana dated 09.07.1992 would
be wholly inapplicable. It was contended that the remission policy dated 09.07.1992
of the State of Gujrana was not even in existence as on the date for consideration of
the remission applications as it was scrapped by way of a Circular dated 08.05.2014
pursuant to the letter of the Central Government circulated to all the States/UTs
requiring the implementation of the judgment of this Court in Sangeet vs. State of
15
Haryana6, wherein this Court held that before actually exercising the power of
remission under Section 432 of the CrPC, the appropriate government must obtain the
opinion of the Presiding Judge of the convicting or confirming court and that the
remission shall not be granted in a wholesale manner. The same ratio is as follows –
1. sense, therefore, the application of Section 432 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to a convict is limited. A convict serving a
definite term of imprisonment is entitled to earn a period of
remission or even be awarded a period of remission under a
statutory rule framed by the appropriate Government or under
the Jail Manual. This period is then offset against the term of
punishment given to him. In such an event, if he has undergone
the requisite period of incarceration, his release is automatic and
Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not even come
into play. This Section will come into play only if the convict is to
be given an "additional" period of remission for his release, that
is, a period in addition to what he has earned or has been
awarded under the Jail Manual or the statutory rules.
2.4 That pursuant to the cancellation of the policy dated 09.07.1992, the State of Gujrana
came up with a new remission policy dated 23.01.2014, and even this policy would
not entitle remission of the accused herein, for two reasons: firstly, because the
remission policy of the State of Mahadesham would be applicable as it is the
‘appropriate government’, and secondly, the 2014 policy of the State of Gujrana bars
the grant of remission to convicts of heinous crimes.
2.5 In Ratan Singh7, on discussing Section 401 of the erstwhile CrPC (corresponding to
Section 432 of the present CrPC) it was observed that the test to determine the
appropriate Government is to locate the State where the accused was convicted and
sentenced and the Government of that State would be the appropriate Government
within the meaning of Section 401 of the CrPC. In the said case, it was observed that
the accused was convicted and sentenced in the State of Madhya Pradesh and though
6
(2013) 2 SCC 452
7
, State of M.P. vs. Ratan Singh, (1976) 3 SCC 470 (
16
he was discharging his sentence in a jail in Amritsar in the State of Punjab, the
appropriate Government under section 401 (1) of the erstwhile CrPC to exercise the
discretion for remission of the sentence was the State of Madhya Pradesh. It was
further observed that even under the new Code i.e. CrPC, 1973 as per sub-section (7)
of Section 432 thereof, the phrase appropriate Government had the same meaning as
the latter provision had been bodily lifted from Section 402(3) of the erstwhile CrPC.
The relevant ratio is as follows –
a. that the appropriate Government has the undoubted
discretion to remit or refuse to remit the sentence and
where it refuses to remit the sentence no writ can be issued
directing the State Government to release the prisoner; (3)
that the appropriate Government which is empowered to
grant remission under s. 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is the Government of the State where the
prisoner has been convicted and sentenced, that is to say,
the transferor State and not the transferee State where the
prisoner may have been transferred at his instance under
the Transfer of Prisoners Act; and (4) that where the
transferee State feels that the accused has completed a
period of 20 years it has merely to forward the request of
the prisoner to the concerned State Government, that is to
say, the Government of the State where the prisoner was
connected and sentenced and even if this request is
rejected by the State Government the order of the
Government cannot be interfered with by a High Court in
its writ jurisdiction.
17
2.6 In the case of Hanumant Dass, 8the incident occurred in Dharmshala, Himachal
Pradesh, but the case was transferred to Gurdaspur, Punjab, while it was pending
before the Sessions Court. Despite the transfer, the appropriate government for
considering remission remained the one in Himachal Pradesh, where the convict was
originally sentenced. Regarding the clemency power of a Governor under Article 161
of the Constitution, the decision in M.T. Khan clarified that the appropriate
government for granting remission is determined based on the state where the convict
was originally convicted, not the state where they are currently serving their sentence.
The same ratio is laid as –
1. Section 432(7) extracted above defines "appropriate
Government". "Appropriate Government" means-(a) in cases
where the sentence is for an offence against, or the order referred
to in subsection (6) is passed under any law relating to a matter
to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central
Government; (b) in other cases, the Government of the State
within which the offender is sentenced or the said order is passed.
2. According to this section the appropriate Government is the
Government of the State of conviction and not the Government of
the State where the offence was committed. A somewhat similar
question came up for consideration in the State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Ratan Singh & Ors.,(1) where the respondent was
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by a court in the
State of Madhya Pradesh. At his request he was transferred o a
Jail in the State H of Punjab, to which State he belonged. He
applied to the Government of Punjab that under the Punjab Jail
Manual he is entitled to be released since he had completed more
than 20 years of imprisonment. The application was sent to the
Government of Madhya Pradesh, which rejected it. In a Writ
petition filed by him the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held
8 AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 1052,
18
that the State of Punjab was the appropriate authority to release

him and directed the State of Punjab to consider the matter. This
Court in appeal observed "a perusal of this provision clearly
reveals that the test to determine the appropriate Government is
to locate the State where the accused was convicted and sentenced
and the Government of that State would be the appropriate
Government within the meaning of sec. 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Thus since the prisoner in The instant case,
was tried, convicted and sentenced in the State of Madhya
Pradesh, the State of Madhya Pradesh would be the appropriate
Government. to exercise the discretion for remission of the
sentence under sec. 401(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure....
."
2.7 In the case of V. Sriharan, it was reiterated that the appropriate government for
considering remission is the one in the state where the offender was sentenced,
regardless of where the offence was committed. This means that even if the crime
occurred in one state, if the trial and sentencing took place in another state, the latter
state's government holds the authority to decide on remission .
2.8 In State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Prem Ram9 it was observed thus:
1. “14. The powers conferred upon the appropriate Government
under Section 433 have to be exercised reasonably and rationally
keeping in view the reasons germane and relevant for the purpose
of law, mitigating circumstances and/or commiserative facts
necessitating the commutation and factors like interest of the
society and public interest.”
2.9 It is submitted that, according to the interpretation of sub-section (7) of Section 432
of the CrPC and the judgments of the Court, it is determined that the State of Mumbara
holds the authority to consider applications for remission for the accused. This is
because they were sentenced by the Special Court in Mumbara. Therefore, the
9
(2003) 7 SCC 121
19
applications filed by Mahesh Vora and others seeking remission had to be rejected by
the State of Gujrana because it lacked the jurisdiction to consider them. The High
Court of Gujrana decision on this matter is incorrect.when an authority lacks the legal
right or power to handle a matter, such as the State of Gujrana in this case not being
the appropriate Government to issue remission orders under Section 432 of the CrPC,
any orders it issues in that regard are considered invalid. This principle is similar to
the concept of a court lacking jurisdiction to hear a case, making any resulting
judgment invalid. Therefore, the remission orders issued by the State of Gujrana are
legally void and must be quashed and set aside.
20
ISSUE 3. WHETHER THE DECISION GIVEN BY GUJRANA GOVERNMENT

VIOLATES THE SPIRIT AND CONTEXT OF THE PROVISION OF SECT.432 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973?
3.1 The Petitioner most humbly submits that the observations made in the case of
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra through CBI10, Bombay,
particularly in paras 921 and 922, underscore the importance of ensuring that the
exercise of power by the appropriate Government under Section 432 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not automatic, but subject to stringent conditions.
Sec 432 talks about power to suspend or remit sentences.It is submitted that,
Section 432(1)in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 States that When any
person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate
Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which
the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the
whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.
3.2 Firstly, it is emphasized that the power of remission cannot be claimed as an

absolute right by the convict or anyone on his behalf. Rather, it is an enabling
provision subject to specific conditions laid down in the Jail Manual or statutory
rules. This underscores the need for a well-informed, reasonable, and fair decision-
making process by the appropriate Government, ensuring checks against arbitrary
use of power.
3.3 Secondly, the misconception that a prisoner serving a life sentence has an
indefeasible right to release after completion of a certain period, such as 14 or 20
years, is dispelled. It is clarified that a convict undergoing life imprisonment is
expected to remain in custody until the end of their life, subject to any remission
granted by the appropriate Government under Section 432 of the CrPC. However,
10 10
(2013) 13 SCC 1
21
such remission is subject to procedural checks mentioned in the said provision and
substantive checks in Section 433-A of the Code.
3.4 In light of these observations, the Petitioner submits that any application for
remission must be carefully scrutinized, ensuring adherence to statutory procedures
and substantive checks laid down in the CrPC. The discretion vested in the
appropriate Government must be exercised judiciously, considering the gravity of
the offense, interests of justice, and the rights of all concerned parties. Any arbitrary
exercise of power would not only undermine the rule of law but also jeopardize the
principles of fairness and justice inherent in the legal system. Therefore, the
Petitioner respectfully urges the Honorable Court to uphold the principles laid
down in Yakub Abdul Razak Memon case and ensure that remission decisions are
made in a manner consistent with the law and the dictates of justice. The relevant
portion is is as follows -
1. “921. In order to check all arbitrary remissions, the Code itself
provides several conditions. Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 432
of the Code lay down basic procedure for making an application
to the appropriate Government for suspension or remission of
sentence either by the convict or someone on his behalf. We are
of the view that exercise of power by the appropriate Government
under sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the Code cannot be
automatic or claimed as a right for the simple reason, that this is
only an enabling provision and the same would be possible
subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. Those conditions are
mentioned either in the Jail Manual or in statutory rules. This
Court, in various decisions, has held that the power of remission
cannot be exercised arbitrarily. In other words, the decision to
grant remission has to be well informed, reasonable and fair to
all concerned. The statutory procedure laid down in Section 432
of the Code itself provides this check on the possible misuse of
power by the appropriate Government. 922. As rightly observed
22
by this Court in Sangeet v. State of Haryana, there is

misconception that a prisoner serving life sentence has an
indefeasible right to release on completion of either 14 years or
20 years’ imprisonment. A convict undergoing life imprisonment
is expected to remain in custody till the end of his life, subject to
any remission granted by the appropriate Government under
Section 432 of the Code, which in turn is subject to the procedural
checks mentioned in the said provision and to further substantive
check in Section 433-A of the Code.”
3.5 Emphasizing the gravity of the offences in this case and the grotesque nature of the
crimes committed by the accused, it is submitted that while considering the
application for remission, the appropriate government was required to bear in mind
the effect of its decision on the victim and the family of the victims, the society as
a whole and the precedent it would set for the future. To buttress the said
submission, reliance is placed on Epuru Sudhakar 11, Swamy Shraddhananda vs.
State of Karnataka, 12. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Laxman Naskar
wherein this Court had discussed the factors to be considered before granting
remission.
3.6 It was urged that the prerogative power of remission is not immune from judicial
review, vide Epuru Sudhakar wherein it was observed that judicial review of the
order of remission is available on the following grounds:
(i) non-application of mind;
(ii) order is mala fide;
(iii) order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations;
(iv) relevant materials kept out of consideration;
(v) order suffers from arbitrariness.
3.7 It is contended that in the present case, remission was granted to all the convicts
mechanically and without application of mind to each of the cases and that the
11
supra
12
(2008) 13 SCC 767
23
relevant factors were not considered. That the State Government failed to consider
the relevant material and make an objective assessment while considering the
applications of the convicts for remission. The nature and gravity of the crime, the
impact of the remission orders on the victim and her family, witnesses and society
at large, were not considered. That mere good behaviour in jail and completion of
fourteen years in jail are not the only pre-requisites while considering the
application for premature release of the convicts.
3.8 It is most humbly submitted that implementation of the judgment of this Court in
Sangeet vs. State of Haryana 13, wherein this Court held that before actually
exercising the power of remission under Section 432 of the CrPC, the appropriate
government must obtain the opinion of the Presiding Judge of the convicting or
confirming court and that the remission shall not be granted in a wholesale manner,.
3.9 It is most humbly submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that consulting the Presiding
Judge of the convicting court as required under Section 432(2) of the CrPC, it was
submitted that the said provision categorically stipulates that the appropriate
government ‘may require’ the Presiding Judge of the Trial Court to give his
opinion, but the fact sheet is silent on the same.
3.10 It is most humbly contended that the petition does not constitute an intervention
into criminal proceedings but is rather a challenge to arbitrary executive action,
which is amenable to judicial review. That it is settled law that the exercise of power
under Section 432 of the CrPC is an administrative act which neither retracts from
a judicial order nor does it wipe out the conviction of the accused and is merely an
executive prerogative exercised after the judicial function in a criminal proceeding
has come to an end vide Epuru Sudhakar and Ashok Kumar. 14
3.11 The Petitioner most humbly submits that the observations made in the judgment
of Sangeet, Mahender Singh and Jagdish 15 highlight the critical importance of
ensuring that the power of remission is not exercised arbitrarily by the appropriate
Government. The Court's emphasis on the necessity of applying mind to each
13
(2013) 2 SCC 452
14
Supra
15
supra
24
remission application underscores the need for a thorough and individualized

scrutiny of cases, rather than en-masse release of convicts on "festive" occasions or
other generalized grounds.
3.12 It is evident from the judgment that the power of remission is not to be wielded
indiscriminately but must be exercised with due diligence, ensuring that each
decision is well-informed, reasonable, and fair to all concerned parties. This
underscores the principle that the rights and interests of victims, society, as well as
the convict, must be carefully weighed and balanced in the decision-making
process.
3.13 Furthermore, the statutory procedure laid down in Section 432 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) serves as a crucial check against the potential misuse
of power by the appropriate Government. This statutory framework establishes
procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion,
ensuring transparency and accountability in the remission process.
3.14 In light of these observations, the Petitioner respectfully submits that any
decision regarding remission must adhere strictly to the principles enunciated by
the Court in Sangeet,Mahender Singh and Jagdish. The discretion vested in the
appropriate Government must be exercised judiciously, with a meticulous
examination of each case on its individual merits. Failure to do so would not only
undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system but also compromise the
rights of victims and the broader interests of society.
3.15 Therefore, the Petitioner urges the Honorable Court to uphold the principles laid
down in the aforementioned judgment and ensure that the power of remission is
exercised in a manner consistent with the dictates of justice, fairness, and the rule
of law.
3.16 In conclusion, the decision of the Gujarat Government to grant remission to the
accused violates the principles outlined in Section 432 of the CrPC and relevant
25
legal precedents. The State of Maharashtra, being the appropriate Government,

should have jurisdiction over considering remission applications for these convicts.
Moreover, the failure to seek the opinion of the presiding judge further undermines
the legitimacy of the remission decision. Therefore, the remission orders granted
by the Gujarat Government should be invalidated, and the matter should be referred
to the appropriate authority in Maharashtra for further consideration.
26
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the facts presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Petitioner humbly submit that the Supreme Court be pleased to adjudge and declare that
1.The Writ Petition filed under Article 32 ought to be maintainable
2.By way of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to that effect set aside the
remission granted by the State Government of Gujrana to the convicted individuals and review
remission policies to exclude heinous crimes.
3.Ensure adequate compensation and rehabilitation for the surviving victims and recommend
legislative measures to strengthen the legal framework governing remission.
4. Any other relief deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.
For the act of kindness ,the Petitioner shall duty bound forever pray.
27
28

Petitioner Side[1]

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner Side[1]

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team Code-

CHHATRAPATI SHRI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ FIFTH STATE LEVEL MOOT

INDRAYANI N.G.O.............. PETITIONERS

ON SUBMISSION TO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINA)) NO. ___________/ 2024

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Sr. No. LIST OF CONTENT Page no.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

1. Satpal vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 170………………………………………....11

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Art. 32 of the Constitution of India.

Art. 32 in Constitution of India:

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF FACTS ON BEHALF OF THE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIYANA ?

2. WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE GUJRANA GOVERNMENT IS LEGAL

AND CORRECT IN VIEW OF LAW?

3. WHETHER THE DECISION GIVEN BY GUJRANA GOVERNMENT

VIOLATES THE SPIRIT AND CONTEXT OF THE PROVISION OF

SECT.432 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1.Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Issue 1 - Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable in the Hon’ble Supreme

1.1 It is most respectfully submitted that, Article 32 of the Constitution serves as a

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

multiple occasions entertained writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

injured as a result of such act or omission, do not wish to claim

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. It is in the interests of the general public or in the public interest

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

ISSUE 2- WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE GUJRANA GOVERNMENT IS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

8 AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 1052,

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

that the State of Punjab was the appropriate authority to release

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

ISSUE 3. WHETHER THE DECISION GIVEN BY GUJRANA GOVERNMENT

3.2 Firstly, it is emphasized that the power of remission cannot be claimed as an

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

by this Court in Sangeet v. State of Haryana, there is

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

remission application underscores the need for a thorough and individualized

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

legal precedents. The State of Maharashtra, being the appropriate Government,

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1.The Writ Petition filed under Article 32 ought to be maintainable

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

You might also like