DEVI CHARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was sent in this Court by Devi Charan, the petitioner before me, through Jail, which was registered as Criminal Misc. (Main) No.3270/94.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was committed to judicial custody on 15.12.1979 to face trial in case FIR No.1392/1979 under Section 307, 392,394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner was convicted on 21.12.1985 and sentenced to life imprisonment. An order on behalf of the Lt.Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi No.F-89/20/94-Home (General) dated 9.11.1994 was issued pursuant to which the petitioner was ordered to be released on 9.11.1994. The order inter alia stated that the Lt.Governor was pleased to remit unexpired portion of the sentence of 22 life convicts on the recommendation of the Sentence Revising Board subject to the conditions that they shall execute personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000.00 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Delhi for keeping good behaviour and maintaining peace during the unexpired portion of their sentence. As the petitioner, in this case, was not in a position to produce sureties as aforesaid, he is still languishing in Jail in spite of the order of his release being passed on 9.11.1994.

(3.) I appointed Mr.A.K.Singhla, Advocate, as amicus curiae to assist the Court in the matter as an objection was taken by the learned counsel for the State that as this petition has been filed for reducing the amount against the order of remission passed by the Lt.Governor, a writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India will be maintainable. Mr.Singhla, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that power to grant pardon or remission flows from the provisions of Article 72 and Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The Article 72 of the Constitution gives powers to the President of India whereas similar provisions are contained in Article 161 giving powers to the Governor of the State. That may not be germane to the controversy in question as the very basis of the exercise of these powers are not relevant.