# Ram Deo and others v. State of U.P. and another /

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1020
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-05-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1021 of 2003
- **Bench:** Amitava Lala, Shiv Shanker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-deo-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40714
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Art. 161 and 226writ of mandamus-petitioners seeking
direction-claiming benefit of G.O. dated
11.1.2000 to 25.1.2000 by which all the
accused person, who are in Jail having
60 years age of for male and 50 years for
female-be
pardoned
by
general
direction-the G.O. relied by petitionersalready struck down by Division Bench of
High Court- with specific direction for
consideration of individual's case-No
such mandamus can be issued-However
if any representation made before the
Government shall be considered by
giving full fledged opportunity within
one month from the date of receipt of
such application.

Held: Para 3

Article 161 of the Constitution of India
speaks that the Government has power
to grant pardon etc. and suspend to
commute sentences in certain cases. We
are also of the view such power is to be
exercised on the basis of individual cases
and following process laid down in the
Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also
significant to note that the appropriate
Government may or may not accept the
pardon. Therefore, at this juncture, the
High Court cannot calculate the period of
imprisonment and hold by itself that on
the individual cases of the petitioners,
they
will
be
sent
for
further
imprisonment or they will pardoned. It is
for essential function of the Government
nor for the writ court. Striking down by
the
general
order
passed
by
the
Government does not mean considering
the individual cases, has been usurped.
Therefore, remedy is open for the
petitioners
to
approach
before
to
appropriate
Government
for
consideration of their individual case.
Case law discussed:
3 All] State of U.P. V. Vishram Singh Raghubanshi
1021
2002 (44) ACC-81 (SC)
2004 (49) ACC-2641

## Text

1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
escape the rigour of law. Therefore, we do
not accept the apology of the contemnor.
Instead, we allow the reference and find
the
contemnor
Vishram
Singh
Raghubansi, Advocate to be guilty of
criminal contempt on both the charges.
We convict him accordingly under
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act
and sentence him to suffer simple
imprisonment for three months and to pay
a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment
of fine, he shall suffer further simple
imprisonment of one month. However,
the punishment so imposed shall be kept
in abeyance for a period of sixty days to
enable him to approach the Supreme
Court, if so advised.

20. The contemnor Vishram Singh
Raghubansi,
Advocate,
Collectorate,
Etawah shall be taken into custody to
serve out the sentence immediately after
the expiry of sixty days if no stay order is
passed by the Supreme Court in the
meantime.

Let the matter come up before this
court on 2nd ugust, 2006 for ensuring
compliance.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1021 of
2003

Ram Deo and others
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and another...Respondents/
Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Devendra Swaroop

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Constitution of India-Art. 161 and 226writ of mandamus-petitioners seeking
direction-claiming benefit of G.O. dated
11.1.2000 to 25.1.2000 by which all the
accused person, who are in Jail having
60 years age of for male and 50 years for
female-be
pardoned
by
general
direction-the G.O. relied by petitionersalready struck down by Division Bench of
High Court- with specific direction for
consideration of individual's case-No
such mandamus can be issued-However
if any representation made before the
Government shall be considered by
giving full fledged opportunity within
one month from the date of receipt of
such application.

Held: Para 3

Article 161 of the Constitution of India
speaks that the Government has power
to grant pardon etc. and suspend to
commute sentences in certain cases. We
are also of the view such power is to be
exercised on the basis of individual cases
and following process laid down in the
Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also
significant to note that the appropriate
Government may or may not accept the
pardon. Therefore, at this juncture, the
High Court cannot calculate the period of
imprisonment and hold by itself that on
the individual cases of the petitioners,
they
will
be
sent
for
further
imprisonment or they will pardoned. It is
for essential function of the Government
nor for the writ court. Striking down by
the
general
order
passed
by
the
Government does not mean considering
the individual cases, has been usurped.
Therefore, remedy is open for the
petitioners
to
approach
before
to
appropriate
Government
for
consideration of their individual case.
Case law discussed:
3 All] State of U.P. V. Vishram Singh Raghubanshi
1021
2002 (44) ACC-81 (SC)
2004 (49) ACC-2641

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J.)

1. The petitioners made the
following prayers:-

"a issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents not to arrest the petitioners
and refrain from taking any action
revoking their orders of release under the
Government Order dated 11.1.2000 to
25.1.2000.
b.
issue any other writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances
of the present case.
c.
award the cost of the petition to the
petitioners."

2. The aforesaid writ petition was
filed on 17.2.2003 when the aforesaid two
Government Orders were already struck
down by Division Bench of this Court in
the matter of Mirza Mohammad Husayn
vs. State of U.P. 2002 (44) ACC 81 (SC).
Therefore, the Government Orders, which
were struck down by Division Bench of
this Court were no more available at the
time of making this writ petition. Hence,
the only relevant part of consideration is
whether the petitioners will be arrested or
not. Factually, they were convicted and
their order of conviction were upheld by
the appellate court. The Government
Orders, which were struck down by the
High Court, were general in nature,
applicable in respect of all the persons,
who are in jail having 60 years age for the
male prisoners and 50 years age for the
female prisoners. The Division Bench
held that for the purpose of pardoning
individual cases are to be considered by
the Government in view of Article 161 of
the
Constitution
of
India.
Another
Division Bench followed the ratio as
reported in 2004 (49) ACC 2641,
Bachchey Lal vs. State of U.P., Lucknow
and others.

3. Article 161 of the Constitution of
India speaks that the Government has
power to grant pardon etc. and suspend to
commute sentences in certain cases. We
are also of the view such power is to be
exercised on the basis of individual cases
and following process laid down in the
Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also
significant to note that the appropriate
Government may or may not accept the
pardon. Therefore, at this juncture, the
High Court cannot calculate the period of
imprisonment and hold by itself that on
the individual cases of the petitioners,
they will be sent for further imprisonment
or they will pardoned. It is for essential
function of the Government nor for the
writ court. Striking down by the general
order passed by the Government does not
mean considering the individual cases,
has been usurped. Therefore, remedy is
open for the petitioners to approach
before to appropriate Government for
consideration of their individual case.

4. Thus, having heard the learned
counsels appearing for the contesting
parties and in disposing of the writ
petition, we direct the petitioners to
approach the Government individually
annexing copy of the order within a
period of one month from this date. Upon
receiving such individual applications,
appropriate Government will consider the
same within a period of one month from
the date of such applications by giving
fullest opportunity of hearing and taking
decision in accordance with law. For the
1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
purposes of effective adjudication, a copy
of the writ petition along with its
annexure can also be treated as part and
parcel of the application.

5. The writ petition stands disposed
of.

However, no order is passed as to
costs.

 Petition Disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.04.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.3485 of
2006

Bhupendra Singh

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & another...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-S-482Quashing of Charge Sheet-offence under
section 149,148,149,302,307 I.P.C.-on
the ground other co-accused acquittedon the principle stars decises upon 2005
(53) ACC-305-applicant not appeared
before the trial court as yet if the
protection given such person having no
respect to the order passed by court of
law-No relief can be granted-except to
approach before the same Trial courtwho will pass reasoned order.

Held: Para 3 & 4

It is not the law that the principal of
stare decises should be applied also to
the accused who had been avoiding the
process of law. It will be misused of the
power of the court if such an order is
passed in respect of those persons who
have got no respect for the orders of the
court.

In this view of the matter, I do not find
any
merit
in
this
application.
This
application is rejected. The applicant is
free to appear in the court and raise his
grievances in view of the law laid down
by this Court and who will decide it by
passing a reasoned order thereon.
Case law discussed:
2005 (53) ACC-305

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and the learned A.G.A.

2. The applicant has challenged the
proceeding of a charge sheet under
Sections 147,148,149,302,307 I.P.C., case
crime no.124 of 2005, police station
Kotwali City, district Etah, pending in the
court of C.J.M., Etah.

3. The learned counsel for the
applicant is contended that the other coaccused persons have already been
acquitted. He submitted that since the coaccused persons have been acquitted,
therefore, he should not be tried and he
based his submission on the principal of
stare decises and also relied upon the
judgment of this Court reporting in 2005
(53) A.C.C. 305 Kalimuddin Khan Vs.
State of U.P. and others. The applicant
has not appeared in the trial court as yet.
He has not made any application before
the trial court for the purposes of
discharge or acquittal in accordance with
the law laid down by this Court
mentioned above. It will be a travesty of
justice to close the case and acquit the
accused who has not appear before the
court at all. It is not the law that the