In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court addressed the legal intricacies surrounding the computation of remission for convicted prisoners, specifically focusing on whether the period of pre-conviction detention, commonly referred to as the 'set-off' period, should be considered when calculating remission. The case in question, WP (Crl.) 82 of 2025, titled Shyna P. A. v. State of Kerala and Others, involved a petitioner seeking the inclusion of her husband's pre-trial detention period in the remission calculation of his ten-year prison sentence.
The convict had been granted a set-off of 8 years, 9 months, and 3 days under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allows for the deduction of the time spent in custody during the investigation, inquiry, or trial from the total term of imprisonment upon conviction. The petitioner contended that this set-off period should also be factored into the remission computation, arguing that the convict's good conduct during pre-trial detention warranted such consideration.
However, the jail authorities rejected this claim, stating that remission is applicable only to the period of imprisonment following conviction. This position was initially challenged in the trial court, which ruled in favor of the petitioner. The jail authorities subsequently issued an order reaffirming their stance, leading to the present writ petition before the High Court.
Justice Kauser Edappagath, presiding over the case, meticulously examined the relevant legal provisions, including Section 428 of the CrPC and the Kerala Prisons and Corrections Service (Management) Rules, 2014. The court emphasized that while Section 428 provides for the set-off of pre-conviction detention against the term of imprisonment, it does not equate such detention with post-conviction imprisonment for the purposes of remission.
The court further analyzed the Kerala Prisons and Corrections Service (Management) Rules, particularly Rule 379(a), which stipulates that remission is granted based on good conduct and diligent performance of duties during imprisonment. Additional provisions, such as Rules 381 and 382, outline further remission for prisoners engaged in specific services or those who maintain exemplary behavior. These rules collectively underscore that remission is intrinsically linked to the conduct of a convict during the period of imprisonment following conviction.
In its judgment, the High Court concluded that remission is a privilege extended to convicts based on their behavior and adherence to prison regulations during their sentence. Consequently, the period of pre-conviction detention, although eligible for set-off under Section 428, does not qualify for remission as it precedes the formal commencement of the sentence. The court thus upheld the jail authorities' decision and dismissed the petition.
This ruling delineates the distinction between set-off and remission, clarifying that while set-off pertains to the adjustment of the sentence duration based on pre-trial custody, remission is contingent upon the convict's conduct during the actual term of imprisonment. The judgment reinforces the principle that remission is not an automatic entitlement but a conditional concession predicated on post-conviction behavior within the prison system.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.