The President's exercise of power under Article 72 of the Constitution is unfettered and not subject to judicial review, except in cases where the order is vitiated by extraneous or mala fide factors, or where the President has failed to consider relevant facts or has acted on the basis of irrelevant considerations.

( 1 ) PETER James Gifran Von Kalkestein Bleach, a British national, appearing in person, petitioned before this High Court with the grievance that he is a victim of discrimination as the President of India, while acting in exercise of power, under Article 72, refused to remit the sentence imposed on him while granting the said prayer of five other Russians who were similarly convicted and sentenced with him. His specific case is that he, along with five other Russian Nationals, were convicted in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1997, under Sections 121a/121/122, IPC read with Sec. 25 (1-A) and 25 (1-B) of the Arms Act 1959 and 9b (2) of Explosives Act 1884 and Section 5 of Explosives Substances Act 1908 read with Section 5 (2) (1)/10/11/11 of the Aircraft Act 1934.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of that criminal case are that the accused persons were jointly charged for dropping huge quantities of arms and ammunitions from an Aircraft in the villages Khatugon. Belomu, Moramu, Varadhi, Baradhi within PS Jhalda on the night of 17th/ 18th December, 1995 and they were charged under various provisions of different acts noted above. The facts of the case show that in connection with dropping such huge quantities of arms, an Aircraft was used and Mr. Bleach was its pilot and the five Russians were crew members of the same.

( 3 ) MR. Bleach submitted that at the end of a protracted and joint trial with the five Russians the learned Trial Judge, after considering in detail the evidence against him, and the five Russians, gave a common judgment and sentenced all of them equally.

( 4 ) RELYING on the aforesaid aspect of the matter, Mr. Bleach argued that in matter of sentencing, the learned trial Judge had a discretion. Most of the charges in respect of which Mr. Bleach was convicted, he was not awarded the maximum sentence, but was awarded a lesser sentence and which is exactly similar to the sentences awarded to the five Russians who were convicted with him. Mr. Bleach for the purpose of emphasizing this aspect of the matter has prepared a chart which is set out below :

( 5 ) MR. Bleach further argued that in the criminal case in which he was convicted along with the five Russians, the charge was the same. Mr. Bleach has annexed extracts of the charge that was filed by the CBI in pages. A/2, A/3, A/4, A/5 of his petition and underlined certain portions of those documents in order to show that he along with those five Russians were similarly charged by the prosecuting agency.

( 6 ) SIMILARLY Mr. Bleach tried to show that the Sessions Court, 4th Bench, City Civil Court while framing charges against him and the five Russians framed charges on ten counts similarly against all of them. According to Mr. Bleach there is no factual distinction between him and the five Russians in the matter of filing the charge-sheet by the prosecution and the framing of charges by the Court. The conviction and sentence is also the same. So the contention of Mr. Bleach is that he and those five Russians were similarly placed in connection with the said criminal case.

( 7 ) BUT then on the basis of mercy petitions filed on behalf of five Russians by various organisations and agencies in the Russian Federation the President, acting under Article 72 of the Constitution and considering various aspects of the case and the bilateral relations between the Government of India and the Russian Federation, was pleased to remit, in respect of those five Russians, with immediate effect, the unexpired sentence of imprisonment and fine, if not paid, as awarded by the Sessions Judge, IVth Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1997, vide judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2002.

( 8 ) BY the same order dated 21st July. 2000, State Government was directed to release forthwith and hand over those five Russians to the officers of the Embassy of the Russian Federation for their deportation to Russia.

( 9 ) IMMEDIATELY thereafter on behalf o