Dismissed
Roshan Ali v. State of Odisha
Orissa HCWPCRL/76/2023
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPCRL No.76…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPCRL No.76 of 2023
Roshan Ali ..……. Petitioner
Ms. Geetanjali Majhi, Adv.
-Versus-
The Principal Secretary to Government, ..…… Opp. Parties Government of Odisha, Ms. Saswata Patnaik, Home Department & Others Additional Government Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
03.07.2023
Order No.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Ms. Geetanjali Majhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. The issue of remission as raised in this petition has once been elaborately dealt with us by our Judgment dated 13.09.2022 delivered in WPCRL No.142 of 2020. Having referred to the relevant law, we directed the State Sentence Review Board to reconsider the case of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the said Judgment.
4. It appears from the communication dated 24.05.2023 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) that the State Sentence Review Board having considered the petitioner’s plea for premature release has recommended for rejection of the prayer of remission. In sequel, the formal order of rejection has been issued.
2
5. Ms. Majhi, learned counsel has strenuously argued before us that this is not a consideration as directed by this court by the said Judgment. That apart, she has contended that the Home Department which issued the order of rejection, does not have any authority to reject such prayer for premature release on the basis of the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board. According to her, the State Sentence Review Board is the authority to pass the appropriate order.
6. We are not impressed by the above reasons. According to us there is no infirmity in the order and the communication dated 24.05.2023 clearly demonstrates that the direction of this court has been complied with in letters and spirit. After consideration, the State Sentence Review Board had recommended for rejection. How can it be said that the State Sentence Review Board has not rejected the prayer for remission? It cannot be:
7. Ms. Saswata Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate has appeared for the State to contend that this petition does not call for any consideration.
8. In view of the above observations, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Signature Not VerifiedRati Ranjan
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Jul-2023 19:37:15
Roshan Ali
The Principal Secretary to Government & Others
S. Talapatra
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court