B. Kemal Pasha, J.

Ext.P6 order dated 09.06.2014 in W.P.(C) No.9626 of 2015, issued by the Government of Kerala, which is subsequently corrected through order dated 12.11.2014, is under challenge in these writ petitions. W.P.(C) No.9626 of 2015 is treated as the main case. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9626/2015 is the de facto complainant/injured in C.C. No. 130/1988 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Neyyattinkara.

2. The 2nd respondent in W.P.(C) No.9626/2015, who was the accused in C.C. No. 130/1988 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Neyyattinkara, for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, was convicted by the said court. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three more months, was imposed, through Ext.P1 judgment produced in W.P.(C) No.9626/2015. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.43 of 1990 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The 1st Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, to which it was made over, dismissed the same through Ext.P2, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Challenging the appellate judgment, the 2nd respondent herein preferred Crl.R.P. No.821 of 1991 before this Court. Vide Ext.P3 judgment, this Court confirmed the conviction and the substantive sentence of imprisonment for two years imposed by the trial court, which was confirmed by the appellate court. This Court has set aside the sentence of fine and the consequent default sentence.

3. Thereafter, for 17 years, the 2nd respondent kept mum and was roaming around. After 17 years, SLP No.10048/2011 was preferred by the 2nd respondent before the Apex Court. The said SLP was dismissed. Thereafter, he preferred a Review Petition before the Apex Court and the same was dismissed through Ext.P4 order dated 04.10.2012. While dismissing the Review Petition, the Apex Court has made the following observations: "In the entire Review Petition, the petitioner has not expressed any desire to surrender even now. In the circumstances, no ground is made out for review of the said order".

4. There was even a delay of 204 days in filing the Review Petition. The Review Petition was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits, as is evident from Ext.P4. Thereafter, wisdom prevailed upon the 2nd respondent to have recourse to file an application for getting the powers of the Government exercised under Section 433 Cr.P.C., for which he filed Ext.P5 application on 01.07.2013. After filing the said application, the petitioner/2nd respondent rushed to this Court by filing Crl.M.C. No.3142/2013, seeking an order to get all the coercive steps against him stayed during the pendency of Ext.P5 application. On coming to know about it, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9626/2015 got himself impleaded in it. Realising the consequences, the said Crl.M.C. was withdrawn. As such, there is no order of stay in respect of any coercive steps against the 2nd respondent. Through Ext.P6 order, the Government has chosen to exercise the powers conferred on it under Section 433(c) Cr.P.C. Even though Ext.P6 order shows that the Government has exercised the power under Section 433(d) Cr.P.C., the same has not been corrected so far.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. M. Revikrishnan, Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan and Sri. K.G. Muralidharan Unnithan, the learned Director General of Prosecutions Sri. Asaf Ali for the 1st respondent and the learned Senior Counsel Sri. M.K. Damodaran for the 2nd respondent.

6. Relying on the decision in Mohammed Ishaq v. S. Kazam Pasha and another [(2009) 12 SCC 748], the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Revikrishnan has argued that Ext.P6 has to be subjected to judicial review in a case like this. The learned counsel for the petitioners have taken the view that through Ext.P6, the Governor has exercised the powers conferr