Md. Amjad @ Md. Amzad @ Amjed v. The State of West Bengal

Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta.

#11. It was submitted that the said order has been passed in total disregard of the comments of the other authorities and the recommendation of the SSRB.

#12. It was next submitted that the opinion of the respondent no. 7 could not be termed as an opinion of the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the petitioner had been convicted. Asserting that the provisions of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter “the Code”) are clear and specific, Mr. Mitra argued that the opinion must be had from the presiding Judge of the very Court which either passed the order of conviction or confirmed the same and not from any other person.

#13. He contended that since in the case at hand opinion had been taken from the Learned Chief Judge of the City Sessions Court, Calcutta, who was/is not the presiding Judge of the Court which passed the order of conviction of the petitioner, such opinion could not at all have been taken into consideration by the respondent no. 2 while passing the order impugned.

#14. In support of his contention, that in terms of Section 432 (2) of the Code, the opinion of presiding Judge of the Court by which the order of conviction was passed alone is important, Mr. Mitra relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs. Union of India & Others1.

#15. Attention of this Court was then drawn to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh & Others vs. State of 1 (2024) 5 SCC 481 Chhattisgarh & Another2 for the proposition that when a co-accused has been treated in a particular way, the other co-accused should also be similarly treated. It was submitted that there should be parity in treatment of one co- accused with the other.

#16. Another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another3 was relied on for the proposition that the opinion of the presiding Judge was only a guiding factor but the same would not be binding.

#17. A judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph vs. State of Kerala & Others4 was relied on for the proposition that a life convict could be released directly without remanding the matter to the State Government. For the same proposition, another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwat Saran & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others5 was also relied on.

#18. Mr. Mitra also pressed into service a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish alias Sabbe vs. State of Uttar Pradesh6 for the proposition that where the authorities had failed to discharge their statutory obligations despite judicial directions, a constitutional Court while exercising its power of judicial review could itself take up the task and ensure compliance through a Writ of Mandamus.

#19. A judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Gopal Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal & Others7 was also cited to demonstrate