SHANKER DAS Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code . and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Court of Session on 19-3-1968. He bad filed an appeal against the said conviction in 1968 itself which was finally disposed of on 2-11-1970 modifying his conviction into one under Section 325 Indian Penal Code . ; the sentence was reduced from rigorous imprisonment for life to 7 years rigorous imprisonment only.

(2.) A Notification was issued by the Delhi Administration under Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code . on 27-9-1959 giving certain remissions to persons whose convictions had become final ; this was not, however, to apply, among others, to persons whose appeals were then pending in courts against their convictions. The apparent object of such an exclusion was that the Administration did not wish to interfere with cases which were pending in courts as against convictions which had not become final and thus at least seem to interfere with matters pending before courts. It is not disputed that if the Notification applied to the pititioner, he also would get the benefit of remisions which were ordered under the said Notification and that would probably mean fairly immediate release ; if it is not to apply he would have to stay in jail for some more time.

(3.) Shri K.R. Gupta, who appeared amicus curiae for the petitioner, urged that the exclusion of persons who had .appealed against their convictions and whose appeals were pending on the date of the Notification was discriminatory and offended Article 14 of tte Constitution. Reliance was placed by him on certain observations of Govinda Menon, J. (as his Lordship then was), speaking for a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in re Maddela Yerra Channugadu and others (A.I. R. 1954 Madras 1911). In that case after the Separation of Andhra from the erstwhile State of Madras and during the period there was a common High Court for both the States, the successor to State of Andhra Pradesh granted a general amnesty to all condemned prisoners and that applied expressly even to thos in respect of whom referred trials or petitions for mercy were actually pending. Having come to know of the said Notifications during, the hearing the referred trial in a case of murder the High Court of Madras requested the Advocate General, Andhra to appear and clarify the situation created by the general order of amnesty and whether the release of condemned prisoners, pending confirmation of their amentences by the court did or did not amount to an act of interference with due and proper course of justice in cases pending before that court and whether the Government of Andhra by its action prevented the proper disposal of those cases. The Advocate General conceded before the court when so directed, that even after the release of the condemned prisoners, the power of the High Court to go into the validity of the conviction and sentence still remained and that it was open to the court to find out whether the men had been properly convicted or not. Nonetheless both Govinda Menon, J. as well as as Chandra Reddy, J. (as his Lordship then was) went into the question of the power of the executive to grant pardon or reprieve of all offences, after their commission, either before trial or during trial or thereafter. Chandra Reddy, J. observed that in view of the concession of the Advocate General the hearing of the cases of the referred trials could proceed if necessary.