( 1 ) THREE petitions (Crl. Writ No. 93/84, Crl. Misc. 775/ 85 and Crl. Misc. (Main) 853/85) are being decided by this order.

( 2 ) ALL the three petitions were filed by the same petitioner, namely, Vishwa Nath Verma. The petitioner was in Government service and was member of Indian Foreign Service (B ). He committed murder of his wife and, therefore, was arrested on 25th December 1976. On 4th August 1979 he Was convicted in respect of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He filed an appeal to the High Court which was dismissed.

( 3 ) THE petitioner applied to Delhi Administration for grant of furlough or parole in accordance with the rules framed by the said Administration. Delhi Administration obtained the report of the police which was to the effect that the petitioner was a dangerous and desparate character having killed his wife and that he should not be granted either furlough or parole. On account of the said report, the application of the petitioner was rejected.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved the petitioner brought criminal writ petition No. 93/84 for expunging the aforesaid report of the police. Then he filed a criminal Misc. 775/85 for grant of furlough to him. The third petition (Crl. Misc. (M) 853/85) was filed by him for obtaining parole for a period of two months on the ground that his son, who was living abroad, had to come to India for a short period and that he wanted to remain with his son and also talk to him regarding managing of the property.

( 5 ) ALL the petitions were contested by the State and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

( 6 ) SODHI Teja Singh, the learned counsel for the State, raised an objection that the applications under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. were not legally maintainable, because inherent powers could not be exercised for grant of parole or furlough. Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. reads as under :

"482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court--Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or effect the inherent pow. ers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. "

( 7 ) IT is contended by the said learned counsel that inherent powers could be exercised for either giving effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, that it was clear that it was with respect to the orders of the court only that inherent powers could be exercised, that the exercise of power of parole or furlough fell within the domain of the Government, in ihe present case Delhi Administration, and that, therefore, the High Court cannot exercise that power by interfering into the exercise of jurisdiction by the Government. He explained that a person aggrieved from the order of Delhi Administration could come to the High Court but that could be by way of invoking the writ jurisdiction as given under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 8 ) I, however, do not agree with the learned counsel. The words otherwise to secure the ends of justice are wide enough to cover a case when according to this Court the exercise of jurisdiction by the Government in respect of grant of parole or furlough is not in accordance with ends of justice. Normally, this court will not like to interfere with the jurisdiction exercised by the Government but in some extreme and deserving cases, in the ends ofjustice it becomes the duty of the court to interfere.

( 9 ) I also heard the counsel for the parties in respect of effect of Section 433-A Criminal Procedure Code. which reads as under :

"433-A. Restriction on powers of remission or commission in certain cases.-Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offen