State Government lacks authority to suspend sentences and grant parole to convicted prisoners during active appeal proceedings, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory regulations.

1. In this writ petition the power of the State Government to suspend the sentence and release prisoners on parole when their appeal against the conviction is pending in this Court is questioned; rather an extraordinary situation releasing prisoners in total disregard of statutory rules is noticed in this case.

2. The petitioner states that he belongs to Yarlagadda village and respondents 3 to 8 and fourteen others were charged for murder and the Sessions Judge Machilipatnam convicted respondents 3 to 8 under S. 302 read with S. 149 I.P.C. and for other charges and sentenced to life imprisonment and the said accused who were convicted preferred an appeal Crl. A.241/83 on the file of this Court and the State Government preferred an appeal against the other accused who are acquitted. The request of the accused to release them on bail pending the appeal was rejected on 25-3-1983 by this Court. However only one accused i.e., 7th respondent herein was released on bail for a period of two weeks on the occasion of the death of his father but however the State Government released the respondents on the ground of domestic financial problems which can never be a ground for release and the first order of release was made on 22-9-1983 and the petitioner is not aware of the other orders of release. But the accused who are very powerful people were getting extension of parole from time to time without surrendering and they are still in the village harassing the witnesses who gave evidence against them in the criminal case and the release of prisoners for two months and subsequent extensions of parole is clearly in contravention of the A. P. Prisons Rules of 1979 and the accused are members of C. P. I. political party and supporters of Telugu Desam party and the release of these prisoners by the Chief Minister is arbitrary and capricious and was done with a view to get support from C. P. I. to his Telugu Desam party in Krishna district. Rule Nisi was issued on this petition on 8-8-1984 and when the direction came up before me for the first time the learned Government Pleader represented that after 30th June 1984 no further extensions were given by the State Government and this writ petition was filed after the expiry of the period of parole and challenging the original order granting the parole on 22-9-1983 and hence the petition has become infructuous.

3. The petitioner's counsel on the other hand, submitted that he is not aware of the subsequent orders of extension and even after the expiry of the period fixed in the subsequent orders of extension the accused are still in the village as free citizens and this court should give a direction to re-arrest them and direct the State Government to enforce the term of imprisonment strictly. He also raised the question that the State Government has no power to release the prisoners undergoing imprisonment for life when the appeal preferred by them is pending in this Court.

4. Initially on the question of procedure I have also heard the Public Prosecutor. However I gave notice to the Advocate General and also heard him on the validity of R. 974 of the A. P. Prisons Rules and also Rule 23 of the Suspension of Sentence and Parole Rules, 1981.

5. A counter-affidavit was filed after arguments were heard as the factual position of the surrendering of the prisoners is necessary. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that out of six persons only one prisoner surrendered and the remaining prisoners are overstaying n parole since 1-7-1984 and this counter-affidavit was sworn to on 29-11-1984. The other contention raised in the counter-affidavit is that the petition has become infructuous as the period fixed in the