NARENDRARAJ BOHRA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to grant remission of the sentence to the petitioner imposed in C. C. No. 6636/81 dated 26. 4. 83 on the file of the Court of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras as reversed in c. A. No. 152/83 dated 18. 1. 84 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions judge, Madras and as reversed in C. A. No. 99/87 dated 20. 8. 97 on the file of this court.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was convicted on 26. 04. 1983 by the Second Metropolitan Magistrate in C. C. No. 6636 of 1981 to undergo four months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1 ,000 /-was inflicted. THE said amount of fine has been paid. THE petitioner carried the matter on appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1983 before the Principal sessions Judge, Madras , who allowed the appeal. That order made in Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1983 has been taken on further appeal by the wife of the petitioner in Criminal Appeal no. 99 of 1987 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 20. 08. 1997 partly allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence of imprisonment by one month. While that being so, the Government of Tamil Nadu exercising the power under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code granted remission of sentence in various government orders which has been referred to in the prayer portion and granted the benefit. If the remission so granted by the G. Os were given to the petitioner, he need not undergo the sentence. But the benefits of the G. Os were negatived by the respondent on the sole ground that the petitioner has not been arrested after the order passed by the High Court reducing the sentence to one month. THE petitioner hence filed the present writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to implement g. O. Ms. No. 180 dated 28. 01. 1989 and give the remission to the petitioner, and if such remission is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner need not undergo any sentence.

(3.) IN view of the above said judgments, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of g. O. Ms. No. 180, Home (Prisons IV) Department dated 28. 1. 1989 and as such the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. .