MAFABHAI MOTIBHAI SAGARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

                [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1448 : 2024 INSC 806

                        Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar
                                   v.
                         State of Gujarat & Ors.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 4307 of 2024)
                                21 October 2024
           [Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under
       Section 302 read with sections 147 and 148 Penal Code, 1860
       and sentenced to life imprisonment. His application for remission
       was considered expeditiously by the State Government after
       interference of the Supreme Court. The State Government while
       granting remission imposed four conditions on the appellant. The
       appellant contended that two out of these four conditions are
       vague, subjective and arbitrary. The issue before the Hon’ble
       Supreme Court is the legality of these two conditions imposed
       by the appropriate government in exercise of its powers under
       Section 432(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
       ‘the CrPC’) while remitting the life sentence of the appellant.

                                   Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) – Explained:
       Held: The appropriate government has the power to remit the whole
       or any part of the punishment of a convict unconditionally or subject
       to certain conditions – Actual remission takes effect only after the
       convict accepts the conditions – There is an identical provision in
       the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in form of
       section 473(1). [Paras 9, 17(i), 2]
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) – The power to
       grant remission – How to be exercised:
       Held: A constitution bench of Supreme Court in Union of India v.
       V. Sriharan alias Murugan & Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 1, while approving
       the view taken in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 3
       SCC 294 held that, the decision to grant remission has to be well
       informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned – Convict cannot seek
       remission of sentence as of right – Factors including public interest,


* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                                1449

           Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors.


     the gravity and nature of the offences involved and antecedents of
     the convict can be looked into by the appropriate government as
     the power to grant remission is discretionary – Almost all the States
     including the State of Gujarat who is a respondent here have a
     written policy on grant of remission in order to avoid arbitrary use
     of this power. [Paras 10-11, 12, 17(ii), 17(iii)]
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) – Nature of the
     conditions that can be imposed by the appropriate government:
     Held: The conditions imposed must be fair, reasonable and stand
     the test of scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution – Conditions
     cannot be arbitrary as it will violate rights guaranteed under Articles
     14 and 21 of the Constitution. [Paras 12, 17(iv)]
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) – Whether the
     condition requiring the convict to behave ‘decently’ for a period
     of two years after his release from jail is arbitrary and hit by
     Article 14 of the Constitution:
     Held: The condition number 1 imposed by the appropriate
     government required the convict to: (a) behave ‘decently’ for a
     period of two years after his release from jail and; (b) submit two
     respectable sureties to ensure that he does not commit the breach
     of peace and harmony of the society and does not threaten the
     complainant and the witnesses – The words ‘decent’ and ‘decency’
     are not defined in CrPC or any other cognate legislation, it can mean
     different things to different people and differently in different times –
     This condition is thus vague, arbitrary, unclear, unambiguous and
     capable of having different interpretations – Hence the condition
     is unenforceable and hit by Article 14. [Paras 13, 18a]
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) and 432(3) –
     Whether the condition providing for arrest and automatic
     revocation of remission of sentence if appellant commits any
     other cognizable offence or inflicts any serious injury to any
     citizen or property after his release, valid:
     Held: The Apex Court while dealing with Section 401 of the CrPC of
     1898 (identical to Section 432(3) of CrPC of 1973 and Section 473(3)
     of BNSS), in Shaikh Abdul Azees vs. State of Karnataka (1977) 2
     SCC 485, held that, the provision does not intend to automatically
     revive the sentence already remitted and the government is under
     no legal obligation to cancel such remission – This drastic power
     affecting the convict’s liberty has to be exercised only after due
1450                                                       [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


    compliance of the principles of natural justice – Serving show
    cause notice, opportunity to file reply and of being heard and a
    reasoned order by the adjudicating authority are essential before
    cancellation of such remission – An order cancelling remission can
    be challenged under Article 226 of Constitution by the convict –
    Mere registration of a cognizable offence or allegation of breach
    of condition not a ground for cancellation of remission – A decision
    to cancel remission has to be made on a case to case basis
    taking into consideration the seriousness and gravity of offence or
    breach – Condition number 2 thus clarified. [Paras 14-16, 17(v),
    17(vi), 18b, 18c]

                             Case Law Cited
    Shaikh Abdul Azees v. State of Karnataka [1977] 3 SCR 393 : (1977)
    2 SCC 485; Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan & Ors. [2015]
    14 SCR 613 : (2016) 7 SCC 1; Epuru Sudhakar & Anr. v. Govt. of A.P.
    & Ors. [2006] Supp. 7 SCR 81 : (2006) 8 SCC 161; Mohinder Singh
    v. State of Punjab [2013] 3 SCR 90 : (2013) 3 SCC 294 – relied on.

                               List of Acts
    Penal Code, 1860; Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules,
    1959; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Constitution of India;
    Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

                            List of Keywords
    Section 432 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Remission
    of sentence; Power to remit; Condition imposed by appropriate
    authority for remission; Cancellation of remission.

                           Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    4307 of 2024
    From the Judgment and Order dated 15.02.2023 of the High Court
    of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCRA No. 963 of 2023

                        Appearances for Parties
    Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv., Ali Asghar Rahim, Shekhar Kumar, Advs.
    for the Appellant.
    Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Ms. Shreya Jain, Advs.
    for the Respondents.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                    1451

           Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors.


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                               Judgment
     Abhay S. Oka, J.
1.   Leave granted.
2.   The issue involved in this appeal is as regards the legality of the
     conditions imposed while remitting the life sentence of the appellant
     in the exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 432
     of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’).
     There is an identical provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
     Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) in the form of sub-section (1)
     of Section 473.
     FACTUAL ASPECTS
3.   The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under
     Section 302 read with Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal
     Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and was sentenced on 18th February
     2008 to undergo life imprisonment. The conviction of the appellant
     has attained finality.
4.   The present appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court
     of Gujarat on an application made by the appellant for grant of
     parole under Rule 19 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole)
     Rules, 1959. As the prayer was rejected by the impugned order,
     this appeal was filed before this Court. While arguing the appeal
     before this Court, on 26th June 2023, a submission was made on
     behalf of the appellant that the application for remission made by
     the appellant under sub-section (2) of Section 432 of the CrPC
     was not being considered by the State Government. Therefore, a
     notice was issued on 26th June 2023 on that limited aspect, and a
     direction was issued to expeditiously decide the pending application
     for grant of remission.
5.   On 15th September 2023, the Home Department of the Government
     of Gujarat passed an order granting remission to the appellant. His
     remaining sentence was remitted. While granting remission by the
     order dated 15th September 2023, four conditions were imposed,
     which read thus:
1452                                                      [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


          “Conditions:
          (1)   After the release from jail the prisoner shall
                behave decently for 2 (Two) years. For this purpose
                he has to submit two Sureties of the respectable
                persons of the Society stating that the prisoner shall
                not breach the peace and harmony of the society
                and also shall not threaten the complainant and
                witnesses.
          (2)   If the prisoner after the release from the jail
                carries out any cognizable offence or inflict any
                serious injury to any citizen or property then he
                will be arrested again and he will have to serve
                the remaining period of sentence in jail.
          (3)   After being released from jail the prisoner shall mark
                his presence in the nearest police station for a period
                of 1 (one) year.
          (4)   The prisoner shall be released only after paying the
                unpaid fine amount if any.”
                                                   (emphasis added)
     As the appellant was aggrieved by the first two conditions, we
     permitted him to amend the appeal and challenge conditions nos.1
     and 2 instead of driving him to file a fresh writ petition before the
     High Court.
     SUBMISSIONS
6.   Mr Rauf Rahim, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
     appellant, has made submissions on the power of the State
     Government to impose conditions while granting remission. He
     submits that the impugned conditions defeat the very object of the
     grant of remission. He submitted that the word “decently” used in
     condition no.1 is vague. The concept of decency differs from person
     to person. Therefore, putting such a condition of maintaining decent
     behaviour is completely violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
     India being manifestly arbitrary. It is submitted that putting such a
     condition confers arbitrary power on the State Government to cancel
     the remission order. Hence, the condition violates Article 21 of the
     Constitution of India.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                      1453

              Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors.


7.    Regarding condition no.2, the learned senior counsel submitted that
      even if a false allegation is made against the appellant of commission
      of any cognizable offence, he will be deprived of remission granted
      under the order dated 15th September 2023. The learned senior
      counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shaikh
      Abdul Azees v. State of Karnataka.1 While dealing with sub-section
      (3) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (for
      short, ‘the CrPC of 1898’) which is pari materia with Section 432 of
      the CrPC, this Court held that on breach of any of the conditions
      on which remission is granted, there is no automatic revival of the
      sentence. He submitted that both conditions are completely illegal.
8.    Ms Swati Ghildiyal, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st
      respondent-State of Gujarat, submitted that under sub-section (1)
      of Section 432 of the CrPC, the appropriate Government has the
      power to remit the whole or any part of the punishment subject to
      certain conditions. The provision requires the convict to accept the
      said conditions, without which he cannot be granted the benefit of
      remission. The learned counsel submitted that it is very well settled
      that a convict is not entitled to remission of the sentence as a matter
      of right. She submitted that the limited right of the convict is only
      to be considered for remission as held by this Court in the case of
      Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan & Ors.2 The learned
      counsel also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Epuru
      Sudhakar & Anr. v. Govt. of A.P. & Ors.,3 which lays down that
      the power to remit sentence is a discretionary power which has to
      be exercised on public interest considerations. The learned counsel
      submitted that the appellant has accepted the conditions imposed
      on him and has furnished surety in terms of condition no.1. Hence,
      no interference is called for.
      CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
9.    Section 432 of the CrPC reads thus:
             “432. Power to suspend or remit sentences.—(1) When
             any person has been sentenced to punishment for an



1    [1977] 3 SCR 393 : (1977) 2 SCC 485
2    [2015] 14 SCR 613 : (2016) 7 SCC 1
3    [2006] Supp. 7 SCR 81 : (2006) 8 SCC 161
1454                                                  [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                  Digital Supreme Court Reports


        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.
        (2) Whenever an application is made to the appropriate
        Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence,
        the appropriate Government may require the presiding
        Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was
        had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the
        application should be granted or refused, together with
        his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the
        statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record
        of the trial or of such record thereof as exists.
        (3) If any condition on which a sentence has been
        suspended or remitted is, in the opinion of the
        appropriate Government, not fulfilled, the appropriate
        Government may cancel the suspension or remission,
        and thereupon the person in whose favour the sentence
        has been suspended or remitted may, if at large, be
        arrested by any police officer, without warrant and
        remanded to undergo the unexpired portion of the
        sentence.
        (4) The condition on which a sentence is suspended or
        remitted under this section may be one to be fulfilled by
        the person in whose favour the sentence is suspended
        or remitted, or one independent of his will.
        (5) The appropriate Government may, by general rules
        or special orders, give directions as to the suspension of
        sentences and the conditions on which petitions should
        be presented and dealt with:
        Provided that in the case of any sentence (other than a
        sentence of fine) passed on a male person above the
        age of eighteen years, no such petition by the person
        sentenced or by any other person on his behalf shall be
        entertained, unless the person sentenced is in jail, and—
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                            1455

            Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors.


                   (a) where such petition is made by the person
                   sentenced, it is presented through the officer in
                   charge of the jail; or
                   (b) where such petition is made by any other person,
                   it contains a declaration that the person sentenced
                   is in jail.
            (6) The provisions of the above sub-sections shall also
            apply to any order passed by a Criminal Court under any
            section of this Code or of any other law which restricts
            the liberty of any person or imposes any liability upon him
            or his property.
            (7) In this section and in Section 433, the expression
            “appropriate Government” means,—
                   (a) in cases where the sentence is for an offence
                   against, or the order referred to in sub-section (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.”
                                                      (emphasis added)
     Under sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the CrPC, the appropriate
     Government has the power to remit the whole or any part of the
     punishment of a convict. The remission can be granted either
     unconditionally or subject to certain conditions. As expressly provided
     under sub-section (1) of Section 432, actual remission takes effect
     only after the convict accepts the conditions. Thus, there is no doubt
     that there exists a power in the appropriate Government to grant
     remission subject to compliance with conditions.
10. Insofar as the exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section
    432 of the CrPC is concerned, the Constitution Bench in the case of
    V. Sriharan2 has approved the view taken by this Court in the case
    of Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab.4 The view taken is that the


4   (2013) 3 SCC 294
1456                                                       [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


     decision to grant remission has to be well-informed, reasonable and
     fair to all concerned.
11. It is no doubt true that the power to remit a sentence under Section
    432(1) of the CrPC is discretionary. One of the considerations for
    the exercise of the discretion can be public interest. The gravity and
    nature of the offences committed by the convict are also factors to
    be considered. The antecedents of the convict are also relevant.
    Almost all the States have a written policy on the grant of remission
    under Section 432(1) of the CrPC. For example, the 1st respondent,
    the State of Gujarat, has a policy that forms part of the Government
    Resolution dated 23rd January 2014, which was amended from time
    to time. The said Government Resolution incorporates guidelines/
    policy for consideration of cases for grant of remission and premature
    release of prisoners. The existence of a rational policy is necessary
    to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power to grant a remission under
    Section 432(1) of the CrPC.
12. A convict cannot seek remission as a matter of right. However, he
    has a right to say that his case for the grant of remission ought
    to be considered in accordance with the law. The power under
    sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the CrPC has to be exercised in
    a fair and reasonable manner. Therefore, conditions imposed while
    exercising the power under sub-section (1) of Section 432 must be
    reasonable. The conditions must stand the test of scrutiny of Article
    14 of the Constitution of India. If the conditions imposed are arbitrary,
    the conditions will stand vitiated due to violation of Article 14. Such
    arbitrary conditions may also violate the convict’s rights under Article
    21 of the Constitution.
13. Now, we come to condition no.1. The first part of this condition requires
    the convict to behave decently for a period of two years after release
    from jail. The convict must submit two respectable sureties to ensure
    that he does not commit the breach of peace and harmony of the
    society and does not threaten the complainant and the witnesses. The
    words ‘decent’ or ‘decently’ are not defined in the CrPC or any other
    cognate legislation. The concept of decency of each human being is
    likely to be different. The idea of decency keeps on changing with time.
    As the term ‘decency’ is not defined in the CrPC or any other cognate
    legislation, every person or authority may interpret the same differently.
    Therefore, such a condition while granting remission becomes too
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                         1457

           Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors.


     subjective. Putting such a vague condition while exercising the power
     under sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the CrPC will give a tool in
     the hands of the executive to cancel the remission at its whims and
     fancies. Therefore, such a condition is arbitrary and will be hit by
     Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such a condition cannot be
     imposed as it will defeat the very object of remitting the sentence in
     the exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the
     CrPC. Therefore, condition no.1 cannot be sustained. If a condition
     imposed is unclear or ambiguous, it can have different meanings.
     Consequently, it becomes very difficult to enforce such conditions.
     Thus, the condition imposed while granting remission must be such
     that it is capable of being complied with and enforced.
14. Now, we come to condition no.2, which provides that if the appellant,
    after his release from jail, commits any cognizable offence or inflicts
    any serious injury to any citizen or property, he will be arrested again
    and will have to serve the remaining period of the sentence in jail.
    Thus, this condition authorises the appropriate Government to arrest
    the convict and revoke the benefit of remission. This clause provides
    for automatic cancellation of the order remitting the sentence. In this
    respect, it is necessary to consider the decision of this Court in the
    case of Shaikh Abdul Azees1. It was a case where remission was
    earned by the appellant therein after undergoing a life sentence for
    fifteen and a half years. The High Court held that Section 303 of the
    IPC was applicable, and this was a case of conditional remission under
    Section 401 of the CrPC of 1898. Section 401 of the CrPC of 1898 has
    been quoted in paragraph 13 of the said decision, which reads thus:
          “13. We are, however, clearly of opinion that for the purpose
          of Section 303 IPC it does not make any difference whether
          the remission under Section 401 CrPC is with or without
          conditions. This is clear from a perusal of sub-section (3)
          of Section 401 CrPC which reads as follows:
                “401(3) If any condition on which a sentence has
                been suspended or remitted, is, in the opinion of the
                appropriate Government, not fulfilled, the appropriate
                Government may cancel the suspension or remission
                and thereupon the person in whose favour the
                sentence has been suspended or remitted, may, if
                at large, be arrested by any police officer without
1458                                                        [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


                warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired
                portion of the sentence.”
     An identical provision is found in sub-section (3) of Section
     432 of the CrPC and sub-section (3) of Section 473 of BNSS.
     Ultimately, in paragraph 14 of the said decision, while dealing
     with sub-section (3) of Section 401 of the CrPC of 1898, this
     Court held thus:
           “14. It is manifest from the above provision that on
           breach of any condition of the remission there is not
           an automatic revival of the sentence. It will certainly
           be open to the Government in a particular case to
           cancel the remission but it may not. The Government
           is not under a legal obligation to cancel the remission.
           It is only when the Government chooses to pass an
           order of cancellation of the remission of sentence
           that the convict is arrested and is required to serve
           the unexpired portion of the sentence. During the
           interregnum the accused who is released cannot be
           said to be under a sentence of imprisonment for life.
           While he is in enjoyment of the freedom on account of
           remission, that period is not even reckoned under Section
           401 CrPC for the purpose of calculation of the sentence
           to be served in the eventuality.”
                                                     (emphasis added)
15. The effect of remitting the sentence is the restoration of the liberty of a
    convict. If the order granting remission is to be cancelled or revoked,
    it will naturally affect the convict’s liberty. The reason is that when an
    action is taken under sub-section (3) of Section 432 of the CrPC or sub-
    section (3) of Section 473 of the BNSS, it results in the convict being
    taken to prison for undergoing the remaining part of the sentence. Thus,
    the benefit of remission stands withdrawn. Therefore, this drastic power
    cannot be exercised without following the principles of natural justice. A
    show cause notice must be served on the convict before taking action
    to withdraw/cancel remission. The show cause notice must contain the
    grounds on which action under sub-section (3) of Section 432 of the
    CrPC or sub-section (3) of Section 473 of the BNSS is proposed to be
    taken. The concerned authority must give the convict an opportunity
    to file a reply and of being heard. After that, the authority must
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                     1459

            Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors.


     pass an order stating brief reasons. The principles of natural justice
     must be read into sub-section (3) of Section 432 and sub-section
     (3) of Section 473 of the BNSS. The convict whose remission has
     been cancelled can always adopt a remedy under Article 226 of the
     Constitution of India.
16. In view of the legal position stated above, condition no.2 cannot be
    interpreted to mean that every allegation of a breach thereof would
    automatically result in the cancellation of the order of remission.
    Registration of a cognizable offence against the convict, per se, is not
    a ground to cancel the remission order. The allegations of breach of
    condition cannot be taken at their face value, and whether a case for
    cancellation of remission is made out will have to be decided in the
    facts of each case. Every case of breach cannot invite cancellation
    of the order of remission. The appropriate Government will have
    to consider the nature of the breach alleged against the convict. A
    minor or a trifling breach cannot be a ground to cancel remission.
    There must be some material to substantiate the allegations of
    breach. Depending upon the seriousness and gravity thereof, action
    can be taken under sub-section (3) of Section 432 of the CrPC or
    sub-section (3) of Section 473 of the BNSS of cancellation of the
    order remitting sentence.
17. Our conclusions can be summarised as under:
     (i)    Under sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the CrPC or sub-section
            (1) of Section 473 of the BNSS, the appropriate Government has
            the power to remit the whole or any part of the punishment of
            a convict. The remission can be granted either unconditionally
            or subject to certain conditions;
     (ii)   The decision to grant or not to grant remission has to be
            well-informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned;
     (iii) A convict cannot seek remission as a matter of right. However,
           he has a right to claim that his case for the grant of remission
           ought to be considered in accordance with the law and/or
           applicable policy adopted by the appropriate Government;
     (iv) Conditions imposed while exercising the power under sub-
          section (1) of Section 432 or sub-section (1) of Section 473 of
          the BNSS must be reasonable. If the conditions imposed are
          arbitrary, the conditions will stand vitiated due to violation of
1460                                                      [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


          Article 14. Such arbitrary conditions may violate the convict’s
          rights under Article 21 of the Constitution;
    (v)   The effect of remitting the sentence, in part or full, results
          in the restoration of liberty of a convict. If the order granting
          remission is to be cancelled or revoked, it will naturally affect
          the liberty of the convict. The reason is that when action is
          taken under sub-section (3) of Section 432 of the CrPC or
          sub-section (3) of Section 473 of the BNSS, it results in the
          convict being taken to prison for undergoing the remaining
          part of the sentence. Therefore, this drastic power cannot be
          exercised without following the principles of natural justice. A
          show cause notice must be served on the convict before taking
          action to withdraw/cancel remission. The show cause notice
          must contain the grounds on which action under sub-section
          (3) of Section 432 of the CrPC or sub-section (3) of Section
          473 of BNNS is sought to be taken. The concerned authority
          must give the convict an opportunity to file a reply and of being
          heard. After that, the authority must pass an order stating the
          reasons in brief. The convict can always challenge the order of
          cancellation of remission by adopting a remedy under Article
          226 of the Constitution of India.; and
    (vi) Registration of a cognizable offence against the convict, per se,
         is not a ground to cancel the remission order. The allegations
         of breach of condition cannot be taken at their face value, and
         whether a case for cancellation of remission is made out will
         have to be decided in the facts of each case. Every case of
         breach cannot invite cancellation of the order of remission. The
         appropriate Government will have to consider the nature of the
         breach alleged against the convict. A minor or a trifling breach
         cannot be a ground to cancel remission. There must be some
         material to substantiate the allegations of breach. Depending
         upon the seriousness and gravity thereof, action can be taken
         under sub-section (3) of Section 432 of the CrPC or sub-section
         (3) of Section 473 of the BNSS of cancellation of the order
         remitting sentence.
18. Therefore, we pass the following order:
    a.    The first part of condition no.1 regarding behaving decently, being
          manifestly arbitrary, is struck down. Therefore, the undertaking
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                           1461

              Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors.


              given by the appellant and the surety bonds submitted by him
              stand cancelled only to that extent;
     b.       Condition no.2 stands clarified in terms of this judgment;
     c.       The order of remission shall not be revoked on the ground of
              breaches of conditions without compliance with the principles
              of natural justice as provided in paragraph 17(v) above; and
     d.       The Appeal is partly allowed on the above terms.

     Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Swathi H. Prasad, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Shadan Farasat, Adv.)