MAFABHAI MOTIBHAI SAGAR versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1448, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[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.)