Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, SURENDRA SINGH-I, JJ.
Sanjay Verma – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10924 of 2019
Decided On : 19-04-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 161, 162, 172, 72 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 448, 427, 323, 504, 332, 302, 120-B - Cable Trespass Act – Section 24 - Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 2, 3 - Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25 - Sentence was remitted – Quash order - Issue direction in nature of certiorari quashing impugned Government Order – Respondent no. 5, Man Singh was remitted remaining period of his life imprisonment after a period of 12 years and 2 months by Governor. [Para 20]
Finding of the Court: Convict fulfils requirement relating to period of sentence undergone by him and his suffering from one of disease “congestive heart failure” mentioned in G.O. but his sentence cannot be remitted as his case is covered under clause (x) of exempted class of convicts - Respondent no. 5 has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in following two S.T. cases - Thus, respondent no. 5 was not entitled for remission of sentence under provisions of impugned order issued under G.O. passed under Article 161 of Constitution of India - Apart from this, in impugned order by which respondent no. 5, Man Singh has been granted remission in his sentence, there is no notice of fact that he has a criminal history of 26 other criminal cases against him – Court is of considered opinion that respondent no. 5, was not entitled to remission of sentence as this case was covered by prohibition no. (x) mentioned in above G.O. and while granting remission, his 26 other criminal cases was not brought to notice of Governor - Impugned order by which respondent no. 5 was granted remission of sentence was without authority of law and is liable to be set-aside.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.
1. Heard Sri Akash Mishra, holding brief of Sri Murlidhar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
2. Vide order dated 25.04.2019, learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to implead Man Singh S/o Jardan Singh. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Man Singh was impleaded as respondent no. 5 and notice was issued against him.
3. Vide order dated 16.03.2023, the Court held about the service of notice on respondent no. 5 as follows:
Accordingly, service upon respondent no. 5 is deemed to be sufficient.”
4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Sanjay Verma who was fatally injured in the related Sessions Trial No. 41/2007 in which convict respondent no. 5, Man Singh’s sentence was remitted. The petitioner has prayed to:
(ii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(iii) award the cost of the petition to the petitioners.
5. The Governor of the State of U.P. has remitted the remaining part of the sentence of Man Singh exercising his power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The Special Secretary, Jail Administration and Reforms has issued impugned order no. 314/22-2-2019-17(150)/2019, Lucknow dated 01.02.2019 granting aforesaid remission to convict respondent no. 5, Man Singh S/o Jardan Singh, lodged in Central Jail, Agra, who was convicted and sentenced with life imprisonment in S.T. No. 41/2007 u/s 148, 307/149, 302/149 I.P.C. and 25 of Arms Act by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi vide order dated 20.08.2009 and whose conviction was upheld by this Court vide judgment and order dated 12.09.2017.
6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that released convict respondent no. 5, Man Singh, has a criminal history of 27 cases which were not taken into consideration while impugned order granting remission to respondent no. 5, Man Singh, was passed. The criminal history is as follows:
(ii) Case Crime No. 257/1987 u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 448, 427 I.P.C. and 24 of Cable Trespass Act, Police Station-Seepari Bazar, District-Jhansi.
(iii) Case Crime No. 259/1990 u/s 452, 323, 504 I.P.C. Police Station-Seepari Bazar, District-Jhansi.
(iv) Case Crime No. 299/1990 u/s 452, 323, 504 I.P.C. Police Station-Seepari Bazar, District-Jhansi.
(v) Case Crime No. 257/1990 u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 332 I.P.C. Police Station-Seepari Bazar, District-Jhansi.
(vi) Case Crime No. 70/1991 u/s 307, 302 I.P.C. Police Station-Seepari Bazar, District-Jhansi.
(vii) Case Crime No. 150/1992 u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Seepari Bazar, District-Jhansi.
(viii) Case Crime No. 205/1992 u/s 302, 120-B, 148 I.P.C. (Aajeevan Karavas) 09.09.2003, Police Station-Seepari Bazar, District-Jhansi.
(ix) Case Crime No. 208/1992 u/s 3(1) Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Seepari Bazar, District-Jhansi.
(x) Case Crime No. 719/1993 u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Seepari Bazar, District-Jhansi.
(xi) Case Crime No. 39/1994 u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and SC/ST Act, Police Station-Seepari Bazar, District-Jhansi.
(xii) Ca
Article 161 of Constitution of India which is as power of Governor to grant pardons, etc. and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases.
The Governor's discretion under Article 161 is bound by the State Government's advice regarding remission, and reasons for dissent must be valid and substantiated.
Governor is formal head and sole repository of executive power but is incapable of acting except on, and according to, advice of his Council of Ministers – Advice of State Cabinet is binding on Gover....
Point of Law : Court has the power to review the decision of the government regarding the acceptance or rejection of an application for remission under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C. to determine whether....
(1) Right to file petition under Article 32 of Constitution is also a Fundamental Right.(2) Remission in sentence – Power to grant remission on an application filed by convict or on his behalf, is ul....
The discretion to suspend or remit the sentence lies with the State Government, but the decision must be in accordance with the law and not arbitrary. The opinion of the Presiding Judge must fulfill ....
Point of law : Life convict - Remission policy as on the date of conviction of accused, educational qualifications, more particularly higher qualifications acquired by the life-convicts while serving....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
