D. ETHIRAJ versus SECRETARY TO GOVT. & ORS.

D. ETHIRAJ versus SECRETARY TO GOVT. & ORS.

Eligibility for remission under G.O.Ms. No. 279 dated 23.2.1992 depends on the actual period of imprisonment undergone, not on whether the prisoner was on bail on the date of notification. The appellant, having suffered more than six months imprisonment, is entitled to have his case considered for remission.

Parties
Appellant: D. Ethiraj; Respondents: Secretary to Government & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment in Appeal Against High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Remission of Sentence, Application of Government Orders Under Article 161, Precedent
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Remission of Sentence Application of Government Orders Under Article 161 Precedent

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. Ethiraj

Appellant

Secretary to Government & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment in Appeal Against High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to remission of sentence under G.O.Ms. No. 279 dated 23.2.1992 despite being on bail on the date of notification
  2. 2 Whether the period spent on bail can be excluded for calculating remission eligibility

Ratio Decidendi

Eligibility for remission under G.O.Ms. No. 279 dated 23.2.1992 depends on the actual period of imprisonment undergone, not on whether the prisoner was on bail on the date of notification. The appellant, having suffered more than six months imprisonment, is entitled to have his case considered for remission.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court judgment set aside
  • Appellant directed to make a fresh representation for remission attaching a copy of the judgment