EKNATH MADHU PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Shri Bagwe learned Addl. Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents. By consent Rule heard forthwith. Heard Parties. The applicants are original accused nos. 7 and 8 is Sessions Case no. 708 of 1992 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane. In the aforesaid case by a judgment and order dated 8.2.1996 both the applicants were convicted for offence under section 326 of IPC and each was sentenced to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further R.I. for three months. By this application the applicants have stated that they have been in custody since the date of their arrest and have completed the period of imprisonment of about more than 3 years and 8 months. The applicants have stated that they have behaved properly in jail and as such they have prayed that their sentence be remitted. Ultimately they have requested that the remaining portion of sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, be remitted.

(2.) IT is an settled position that the court has no power to grant remission as prayed for and it is the exclusive prerogative of the Executive to grant remission under the Code of Criminal Procedure.