SALEEM GUDUSAB NAIK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellate-accused has filed a memo for withdrawal of the appeal which reads as follows:

(2.) IN Support of the memo, the Learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the letter dated 18. 9. 2006 addressed by the appellant-accused to the Member Secretary, Legal Services authority seeking free legal aid to enable him to withdraw this appeal pending in the High Court. He would also refer to the letter of Member Secretary, Legal Services Authority dated 17. 11. 2006 addressed to the Learned Advocate V. B. Siddaramaiah, requesting him to place the representation of the appellant-accused before this court to enable him to withdraw the appeal. We have read both these communications.

(3.) IT is seen from the letter dated 18. 9. 2006 appended to the memo addressed by the appellant to the Secretary, KLSA, he has sought permission to withdraw the appeal in the hope he may get remission of sentence. In this regard he has mentioned that on the eve of National Celebrations, Government of Karnataka is considering premature release of convicts subject to condition that there should be no appeal pending consideration in courts. As the instant appeal of the appellant is pending, the jall authorities have declined to receive / forward his application for remission unless he withdraws his appeal. This is the only reason for the appellant to seek withdrawal of the appeal. The Legal Services authority has forwarded his representation to his counsel to be placed before us for consideration. We had questioned the Learned addl. SPP as to whether withdrawal of appeal is a condition precedent for receiving and considering the application of the convicts and if so whether it is supported by any Rules, guidelines or instructions issued by the Government.