Skip to main content

Commutation, Suspension, and Remission of Sentence

Image
Commutation of Sentence
The Appropriate Government may, without the consent of the offender, commute any punishment under the BNS to any other punishment in the following manner:-
a.) Death - imprisonment for life (which shall not be less than 14 years in any case)
b.) Imprisonment for life - imprisonment (ordinarily not less than 7 years) (and not less than 14 years if death is one of the punishments for the offence committed)
c.) Imprisonment (7 years or more) - imprisonment (not less than 3 years)
d.) Imprisonment (less than 7 years) - fine 
e.) Rigorous - simple (any term, the person might have been sentenced)

Suspension and Remission of Sentence

When a person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate govt. may suspend the execution of his sentence or remit (whole/part) the punishment as given to him. 


Conditions 

Such suspension/remission of sentence may be with or without any condition subject to the acceptance of the same by the said person. There may be two conditions for granting suspension/remission out of which one shall be mandatory and the other discretionary to the said person.


Breach of Condition

If any condition is imposed and accepted, is not fulfilled, the appropriate govt. may cancel the suspension or remission, and consequently, if the said person is released, shall be arrested without a warrant and remanded to undergo the remaining(unexpired) sentence.


Punishment for Breach of Condition

If the said person knowingly violates the accepted conditions for remission as mentioned above, he shall be punished with the original sentence if he has not suffered any part of it, and if he has suffered the part of it, then the remaining punishment as he has not suffered.


Opinion of the Trial/Appellate Court

The appropriate govt. to decide the application for the suspension/remission of sentence may require the presiding judge of the trial/appellate court which convicted the said person or confirmed his conviction to state a reasoned opinion along with the trial court record (TCR).


Procedure

In the cases where the sentence of imprisonment (not fine) has been imposed against a person above the age of 18 years, the following procedure (subject to other rules) shall be followed:

a.) He must be in jail

b.) The petition should be presented by the officer in charge of the jail if it is made by the said person

c.) The petition should contain a declaration that said person is in jail if it is made by any other person.


Restrictions 

Where a person is sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence which is punishable with either death or life imprisonment (or any other punishment), or the sentence of death has been commuted to life imprisonment, such person shall not be released before 14 years.


Concurrence of Central Govt. in Certain Cases

In the following cases, the State Govt. shall require the concurrence of the Central Govt. to exercise power to grant remission/suspension/commutation of a sentence if it is for an offence:-

a.) Investigated by an agency empowered by a central law (not BNSS); or

b.) Involved the misappropriation/destruction/damage of the property belonging to the central govt; or

c.) Committed by a public servant of the central govt. While acting/purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. 

A person who has been convicted of multiple offences, some of which relate to matters to which the executive power of the Union extends, and said person is sentenced to a separate term of imprisonment to run concurrently, in addition to the order of suspension/remission/commutation of the sentence passed by the State Govt., such order by the Central Govt. shall also be necessitated (only in relation to the offences with regard to matters to which the executive power of the State extends).

Appropriate Government 

Central Govt. - where the sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends 

State Govt. - where the sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.

Here the State Govt. means the govt. of the State within which the offender is sentenced. Further, in the case of a death sentence, both the State and Central Govt. will be the appropriate government for the purpose of commutation, suspension, and remission of the sentence.  


(Ref: Ss 5, 266 BNS and Ss 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, BNSS)


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Advocates Vs. CAs/CSs/CMAs

This article deals with the exclusive right to practise law and tribunal representation and the principles relating to a Harmonious Construction of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Companies Act, 2013 Introduction  The ongoing controversy concerning the right of non-advocate professionals, namely Chartered Accountants(CAs), Company Secretaries(CSs), and Cost and Management Accountants(CMAs), to appear and argue matters before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) raises fundamental questions touching the statutory monopoly over the practice of law in India. This post examines the competing statutory claims under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, applies the doctrine of harmonious construction, and concludes that Section 432 does not, and constitutionally cannot, confer any independent or parallel right to practise law upon non-advocates before tribunals. Background of the Dispute Recently, t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Requirements for Criminal Liability under Sections 406 and 420 IPC

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Jain v. The State of Gujarat and Another (2025 INSC 614), delivered on May 1, 2025, is a significant exposition on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to quash a First Information Report (FIR) in cases where allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are deemed to be a misuse of criminal process for civil disputes. The judgment meticulously analyzes the alleged offenses' legal ingredients, the commercial transaction's factual matrix, and the documentary evidence, ultimately concluding that the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process. Factual Background The case arises from a commercial transaction between the appellant, Ashok Kumar Jain, a director of Maayu Import and Export Ltd., a Sri Lankan company, and the second respondent, a proprietor of Ansh Prints, a textile business in Surat, Gujara...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inter-State Arrests and the Cost of Ignoring Due Process

The Delhi High Court’s judgment authored by Dr. Justice Murlidhar, as he then was, in Sandeep Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), WP (Crl.) 2189/2018, neutral citation: 2019:DHC:6920-DB , is a clear reminder that problems in policing often arise not because the law is unclear, but because basic legal safeguards are ignored. The case shows how easily police action can cross constitutional limits when procedure is treated as a technicality rather than a duty. When a Complaint Turns into Illegal Detention   The case arose from an interfaith marriage between two adults who married of their own free will. The woman’s family opposed the marriage, and soon an FIR alleging kidnapping under Section 366 IPC was lodged in Uttar Pradesh. Acting on this, UP Police travelled to Delhi, entered the JNU campus, and took both the husband and wife back to Ghaziabad. None of the basic legal steps was followed. The local Delhi Police were not informed. No proper diary entries were made. The husband was not ...
Post a Comment
Read more