B. N. KIRPAL, H. L. GOKHALE, J.

( 1 ) ). This is a Letter Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge who allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and allowed the release of the respondent on parole for a period of 20 days.

( 2 ) ). Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent was convicted of an offence and sentenced under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment. It is stated that an appeal against the conviction is still pending disposal in this Court.

( 3 ) ). During the pendency of this appeal an application was filed by the respondent herein before the Government for the grant of parole. This permission was granted initially on 12th July 1995 till 31st July 1995. According to the respondent on or about 25th July 1995 an application was made for extension of parole. When no decision was taken on this application the respondent on 1st August 1995 filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution wherein the prayer was that parole be further extended for a period of 20 days. It appears that on the very same day the respondent had surrendered and he also made an application for the extension of parole. The reason which was given for extension of parole was that his wife was under treatment for angina and high blood pressure and certificate of one Dr. K. T. Patel was produced.

( 4 ) ). At the time of hearing of the petition after notice had been issued by the learned Single Judge it was submitted by the appellant herein that as the respondent had already surrendered the prayer for extension of parole could not survive. The learned Single Judge entertained an oral prayer for amendment of the writ petition and did not grant time to the appellants to deal with the amended petition. In fact no amended petition was filed but after noting that the Counsel for the appellant herein did not want to take time to verify the contents of the medical certificates which had been produced the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that having regard to the ailment which the respondents wife was suffering the authority was directed to release the respondent on parole for 20 days.

( 5 ) ). On the appeal being filed a contention has been raised by the Counsel for the respondent that because the learned Single Judge has passed the order while exercising criminal jurisdiction the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. We do not agree with this argument for the simple reason that the petition by the respondent was under Article 226 of the Constitution and the learned Single Judge in terms has observed in the impugned order that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution he was doing substantial justice and the request of the respondents Counsel for permission to amend the writ petition was granted. It is no doubt true that the exercise of power related to a person who had been convicted of a crime but the criminal jurisdiction which is referred to in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Clause would be with regard to the exercise of powers of Appeal or Revision by the High Court under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable.

( 6 ) ). Ms. Sharma relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court given in a Letter Patent Appeal decided on 30th April 1981 and arising out of Special Civil Application No. 244 of 1980. In that case the petitioner had sought a direction to the Police Officer in charge of a police station to arrest an alleged offender. On that petition being dismissed the petitioner therein had filed the Letters Patent Appeal. In that case the Appeal Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal holding that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable it observed in clear terms as follows:. . . It is thus clear that though the petitioner sought to base his relief under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in fact and substance there was invoking o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document