Cyriac Joseph , J.

1. This appeal filed by the State of Kerala and others is against the judgment dated 30th June, 2003 in W.P. (C). No. 17452/2003 which was filed by Mrs. Soma Thomas, the respondent herein. The appellants were the respondents in the said writ petition.

2. The respondent – Mrs. Soma Thomas is the wife of Sri. P.T. Thomas who is undergoing imprisonment in Central Prison, Viyyur as he was convicted and sentenced for offences under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. She filed Ext.P1 application dated 19.11.2002 before the State Government under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for remission of the sentence of her husband. Alleging that there was delay on the part of the Government in considering Ext.P1 application, she filed the writ petition praying for a direction to the first respondent – State of Kerala to consider and dispose of Ext.P1 application without delay. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P1 and to dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. While issuing such a direction the learned Single Judge proceeded on the assumption that the appropriate Government to consider the request for remission of sentence under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the case of the respondent’s husband is the State Government. However, according to the appellants, the appropriate Government is the Central Government and hence this writ appeal has been filed.

3. We heard Sri. M. Retna Singh, learned Advocate General for the appellants and Sri. V.N. Mohanadasan for the respondent.

4. The question arising for consideration is whether the Government of Kerala has got power to grant remission to the respondent’s husband in exercise of the power under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) when any person has been sentenced to punishment for an 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. According sub-section 7 of Section 432 of the Code, 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, and (b) in other cases the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced or the said order is passed. Thus if the sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central Government is the appropriate Government and in other cases the state Government is the appropriate Government. Therefore the question is whether the respondent’s husband was sentenced for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends. Admittedly the respondent’s husband was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Hence is has to be examined whether the law contained in section 138 of the said Act relates to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends.

5. Article 73 of the Constitution of India read thus:

“73. Extent of executive power of the Union:- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of the Union shall extent.

(a) to the matters with respect to which parliament has power to make laws, and

(b) to the exercise of such rights, authority and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the Government of India by virtue of any treaty or agreement;

Provided that the exec