NAGALINGAM AND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When these Criminal Revision Cases were taken up for hearing on 14-2-1996, Counsel representing the petitioners stated that they had no case on merits, and they pleaded for application of certain Government orders, passed by the State Government, notifying certain remissions to accused, similarly placed like the petitioners. At that point of time, it was urged by Mr. R. Reghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that, in terms of the Government Order of 1987 (G.O. Ms. No. 1762, Home, dated 20-7-1987) petitioners cannot seek remission for the offence punishable under Section 471, I.P.C. and Section 224, I.P.C. Time was afforded to the petitioners till the next day (15-2-1996) to choose the course of action, they intend following.

(2.) On 15-2-1996 counsel stated that there was no decision which had specifically taken note of the 1987 Government Order, except one by me, holding that the 1987 Government Order will stand in the way of applying the subsequent Government Orders on remission, in so far as the offences mentioned in the 1987 Government Order were concerned. They also stated that a contra view stood taken by Jagadeesan, J., in a writ petition, but there was not much of discussion and my view also had not been taken note of. On their request, further hearing was adjourned to today, to help them to look up, for further case law.

(3.) Today, when the matters were taken up, representation was made on behalf of Mr. K. Sukumaran, learned counsel on record in Cri. R. C. No. 293 of 1992 and on behalf of Mr. N. Baskaran, learned counsel representing the petitioner in Crl. R. C. No. 294 of 1992, that further time should be granted for perusing the 1987 Government Order, though they did not have any further authority to cite. Since the 1987 Government Order was carefully seen, by all the counsel, in the Court itself on 14-2-1996 and 15-2-1996, I directed them to conduct the revisions for, the ground on which the adjournment was sought for cannot be accepted. Both the counsel had no further arguments to advance. As far as the other revisions are concerned, there was not even a representation.