# Sanjay Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 40
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.10924 of 2019
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Surendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-verma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49961
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Constitution of India,
1950 - Article - 72, 161, 162, 172, 226 -
Arms Act, 1878 - Section - 25, - Cable
Trespass Act - Section 24 - U.P. Gangsters
and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 - Sections 2, 3 & 3(1) - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 149, 307, 448,
427, 323, 504, 332, 302 & 120-B - Writ
Petition - filed by petitioner who was fatally
injured in the related Session Trial in which
respondent no. 5 was convict and sentenced -
seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the
impugned order passed by Governor of the St.
has remitted the remaining part of sentence of
respondent no. 5 - Session Trial by which
sentence of the convict respondent no. 5 was
remitted - court finds that, respondent no. 5
who has a criminal history of 26 criminal cases
which was not brought to the notice of the
Governor - it is settled law that, the by-product
order cannot get the approval of law and in
such cases, judicial hand must be stretched to it
- hence, respondent no. 5 was not entitled to
remission of sentence - thus, impugned order is
liable to be set-aside - issue directions
accordingly.
Para - 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kamruddin sent a message at 04:00 ''O' Clock
in the morning and called her on the road,
outside of the village, where other two persons
were also present. He took her in a car and there
Kamruddin made a relationship with her on the
pretext of marriage and said that now she might
go right now. Now none of them would do
anything, she might go anywhere. No one
would harm her, go somewhere and die. Instead
of Kamruddin, Anwar and Mobin, these three
persons also raped her and ruined her life, left
her nowhere to show her face, ruined her carrier
and her future and forced her to die and also
threatened that if any action was taken, her
video would go viral, if they would have gone
to jail. The family members and the police no
one trusts her. She had no any other way to
assure the parents. In the last line the deceased
has written that she was committing suicide and
for this Kamruddin, Anwar and Mobin were
responsible. The police was also not doing
anything. Pardon her, mom and dad SABA
(deceased).

11. Learned A.G.A argued that if
Kamruddin would not have done wrong, she
would not have committed suicide. The role of
rest two accused is much lesser and different
than the role of present accused-applicant
Kamruddin. In this case the informant has lost
his young daughter and earlier instances show
that the applicant-accused succeeded in getting
the hostile statement from the deceased under
the pressure and in the subsequent case under
Sections 366, 376, 364-B I.P.C, the conditions
imposed regarding the enlargement of bail have
been mis-utilised by the accused. (Sanjay
Chandra Vs. C.B.I A.I.R 2012 (S.C) 830.)
Except this case the accused-applicant is also
the prime accused in rest crime numbers 594 of
2020 and 505 of 2020.

12. In Ash Muhammad Vs. Shiv Raj
Singh (2012) 9 S.C.C 446, considering the
criminal antecedent, the Apex Court
cancelled the bail granted by the High
Court and observed that the concept of
personal liberty of the person is not realm
of absolutism, but is restricted one.
Incarceration in Jail has no significance and
no element in society can act in a manner
by consequence of which life or liberty of
others is Jeopardised.

13. In Bhagat Singh Vs. State of U.P.
2009 (66) A.C.C 859 (Alld.) in Ravi
Khandelwal Vs State of U.P. 2009 (67),
A.C.C 148 (Alld.), and in Rajesh Ranjan
Yadav Vs. Pappu Yadav Vs. C.B.I A.I.R
2007 (S.C) 451, similar view has been
taken by the Apex Court in Amar Nath
Yadav Vs. State of Punjab & Haryana
2009 (67) (A.C.C) 534 Alld, Shah Narain
Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (66) A.C.C 189 Alld.
and Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana
(2010) (5) S.C.J. 451, that it is not the
universal rule that bail should be granted to
the co-accused on the ground of parity.
Parity cannot be the sole ground of bail, as
judge is not bound to grant bail on the
ground of parity.

14. On the basis of above discussion,
this Court finds the bail application without
any merit and is accordingly rejected.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 40
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.10924 of 2019

Sanjay Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
4 All. Sanjay Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
41
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Murlidhar Misra, Sri Akash Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Constitution of India,
1950 - Article - 72, 161, 162, 172, 226 -
Arms Act, 1878 - Section - 25, - Cable
Trespass Act - Section 24 - U.P. Gangsters
and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 - Sections 2, 3 & 3(1) - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 149, 307, 448,
427, 323, 504, 332, 302 & 120-B - Writ
Petition - filed by petitioner who was fatally
injured in the related Session Trial in which
respondent no. 5 was convict and sentenced -
seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the
impugned order passed by Governor of the St.
has remitted the remaining part of sentence of
respondent no. 5 - Session Trial by which
sentence of the convict respondent no. 5 was
remitted - court finds that, respondent no. 5
who has a criminal history of 26 criminal cases
which was not brought to the notice of the
Governor - it is settled law that, the by-product
order cannot get the approval of law and in
such cases, judicial hand must be stretched to it
- hence, respondent no. 5 was not entitled to
remission of sentence - thus, impugned order is
liable to be set-aside - issue directions
accordingly.
Para - 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Satpal Vs St. of Har., (2000) 5 SCC 170,

2. Bikas Chatterjee Vs U.O.I.& anr., (2004) 7
SCC 634,

3. Epuru Sudhakar & anr. Vs Govt. of A.P. & ors.,
(2006) 8 SCC 161,

4. Narayan Dutt & ors. Vs St. of Pun. & anr.,
(2011) 4 SCC 353,

5. Maru Ram Vs U,O,I. AIR 1980 SC 2147,

6. Swaran Singh Vs St. of U.P. (1998) 4 SCC 75,
7. Gopal Vinayak Godse Vs St. of Mah., AIR
1961 SC 600

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I, J.)

Heard Sri Akash Mishra, holding brief
of Sri Murlidhar Misra, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri Ratan Singh, learned
A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

2. Vide order dated 25.04.2019,
learned counsel for the petitioner was
permitted to implead Man Singh, S/o
Jardan Singh. Pursuant to the aforesaid
order, Man Singh was impleaded as
respondent no. 5 and notice was issued
against him.

3. Vide order dated 16.03.2023, the
Court held about the service of notice on
respondent no. 5 as follows :-

"We find that notices were issued
to the respondent no.5-Man Singh vide
order dated 25.04.2019 and as per office
report dated 01.05.2019 notices were
issued to him by registered post A.D. fixing
20.05.2019. As per office reports dated
18.05.2019
and
24.07.2019
neither
acknowledgement nor undelivered cover
has been received back. Till date no one
has put in appearance on behalf of the
respondent no.5.

Accordingly,
service
upon
respondent no.5 is deemed to be sufficient."

4. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner, Sanjay Verma who was
fatally injured in the related Sessions Trial
No. 41/2007 in which convict respondent
no. 5, Man Singh's sentence was remitted.
The petitioner has prayed to :

(i) issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned
Government
Order
dated
01.02.2019 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ
petition)
passed
by
Vishesh
Sachiv,
Karagar
Prashashan
Evam
Sudhar
Anubhag-2,
Uttar
Pradesh
Shashan,
Lucknow;

(ii) issue any other suitable writ,
order or direction which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper under the
circumstances of the case;

(iii) award the cost of the petition
to the petitioners.

5. The Governor of the State of U.P. has
remitted the remaining part of the sentence of
Man Singh exercising his power under
Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The
Special Secretary, Jail Administration &
Reforms has issued impugned order no.
314/22-2-2019-17(150)/2019,
Lucknow
dated
01.02.2019
granting
aforesaid
remission to convict respondent no. 5, Man
Singh, son of Jardan Singh, lodged in Central
Jail, Agra, who was convicted and sentenced
with life imprisonment in S.T. No. 41/2007
u/s 148, 307/149, 302/149 I.P.C. and 25 of
Arms Act by Additional Sessions Judge,
Jhansi vide order dated 20.08.2009 and
whose conviction was upheld by this Court
vide judgement and order dated 12.09.2017.

6. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that released
convict respondent no. 5, Man Singh, has a
criminal history of 27 cases which were not
taken into consideration while impugned
order granting remission to respondent no.
5, Man Singh, was passed. The criminal
history is as follows :-

(i) Case Crime No. 204/1985 u/s
147, 148, 307, 323 I.P.C., Police Station-
Seepari Bazar, District- Jhansi.

(ii) Case Crime No. 257/1987 u/s
147, 148, 149, 307, 448, 427 I.P.C. and 24
of Cable Trespass Act, Police Station-
Seepari Bazar, District- Jhansi.

(iii) Case Crime No. 259/1990 u/s
452, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station-
Seepari Bazar, District- Jhansi.

(iv) Case Crime No. 299/1990 u/s
452, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station-
Seepari Bazar, District- Jhansi.

(v) Case Crime No. 257/1990 u/s
147, 148, 149, 307, 332 I.P.C., Police
Station- Seepari Bazar, District- Jhansi.

(vi) Case Crime No. 70/1991 u/s
307, 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Seepari
Bazar, District- Jhansi.

(vii) Case Crime No. 150/1992
u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 I.P.C., Police
Station- Seepari Bazar, District- Jhansi.

(viii) Case Crime No. 205/1992
u/s 302, 120-B, 148 I.P.C. (Aajeevan
Karavas) 09.09.03, Police Station- Seepari
Bazar, District- Jhansi.

(ix) Case Crime No. 208/1992 u/s
3(1) Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station- Seepari Bazar, District- Jhansi.

(x) Case Crime No. 719/1993 u/s
323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-
Seepari Bazar, District- Jhansi.

(xi) Case Crime No. 39/1994 u/s
147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 427
I.P.C. and S.C/S.T. Act, Police Station-
Seepari Bazar, District- Jhansi.

(xii) Case Crime No. 190/1998
u/s 302, 34 I.P.C. (Aajeevan Karavas)
11.08.04, Police Station- Kotwali, District-
Jhansi.

(xiii) Case Crime No. 304/1999
u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 427
I.P.C., Police Station- Seepari Bazar,
District- Jhansi.

(xiv) Case Crime No. 425/2002
u/s 3 of U.P. Goondas Act, Police Station-
Seepari Bazar, District- Jhansi.

(xv) Case Crime No. 686/2002
u/s 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-
4 All. Sanjay Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
43
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986,
Police Station- Seepari Bazar, District-
Jhansi.

(xvi) Case Crime No. 687/2002 u/s
2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station- Seepari Bazar, District- Jhansi.

(xvii) Case Crime No. 807/2003 u/s
110 of Cr.P.C., Police Station- Seepari Bazar,
District- Jhansi.

(xviii) Case Crime No. 828/2003 u/s
147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 7 of
Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-
Seepari Bazar, District- Jhansi.

(xix) Case Crime No. /2004 u/s 41,
102 Cr.P.C. and 411 I.P.C., Police Station-
Seepari Bazar, District- Jhansi.

(xx) Case Crime No. 413/2004 u/s
379 I.P.C., Police Station- Seepari Bazar,
District- Jhansi.

(xxi) Case Crime No. 167/2004 u/s
110 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Seepari Bazar,
District- Jhansi.

(xxii) Case Crime No. 172/2002 u/s
107/116 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Seepari Bazar,
District- Jhansi.

(xxiii) Case Crime No. 1463/2006
u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C. & 7 of
Criminal Law Amendment Act (Aajeevan
Karavas date 26.08.2009), Police Station-
Kotwali, District- Jhansi.

(xxiv) Case Crime No. 85/2006 u/s
452, 323, 506B, 294, 227 I.P.C. and 25/27 Arms
Act, Police Station- Tharet, District- Datiya
(M.P.).

(xxv) Case Crime No. 1538/2006 u/s
25 Shastra Act, Police Station- Kotwali,
District- Jhansi.

(xxvi) Case Crime No. 1591/2006
u/s 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station- Kotwali, District- Jhansi.

(xxvii) Case Crime No. 75/2007 u/s
3(2) of National Security Act, Police Station-
Kotwali, District- Jhansi.

7. It has also been submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that due
to indiscriminate firing by respondent no.
5, Man Singh and other convicts, the
petitioner, Sanjay Verma received grievous
injuries and his bodyguard, Ajay Goswami
died of gunshot wounds. It has also been
submitted that convict respondent no. 5,
Man Singh was previously convicted in
four sessions trials u/s 302 I.P.C. with life
imprisonment and in one case under Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, for 10
years imprisonment. The impugned U.P.
Government Order dated 01.02.2019 has
concealed these facts. The S.L.P. No.
1144/2018 filed by respondent no. 5, Man
Singh against his conviction and sentence
was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court
vide order dated 05.03.2018.

8. In the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the State, it has been admitted that
respondent no. 5, Man Singh has been
released vide G.O. No. 314/22-2-201917(150)/2019, Lucknow dated 01.02.2019
passed by Special Secretary granting
remission to the petitioner. It has also been
submitted that the impugned order dated
01.02.2019 has been passed by the
Government of U.P. in accordance with the
policy dated 01.08.2018. It has also been
submitted that the power of remission is
vested in the Governor under Article 161 of
the Constitution of India for premature
release of the convict persons and the
impugned order was validly passed under
Article 161 of the Constitution of India. In
paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit, it
has been admitted that at the time of
release, respondent no. 5, Man Singh was
confined in Central Jail, District- Agra. He
was forwarded to Central Jail, Agra with
two conviction warrant i.e. S.T. No. 41 of
2007 relating to Case Crime No. 1463 of
44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2006 u/s 148, 307/149, 302/149 I.P.C. and
25 Arms Act, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Jhansi
where
he
was
undergoing
life
imprisonment as awarded to him vide order
dated 20.08.2009 and the second conviction
warrant was with regard to G.S.T. No. 89 of
2007 in connection with Case Crime No.
1591 of 2006 u/s 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S.- Kotwali,
District- Jhansi wherein vide judgement
and order
dated
01.09.2017,
convict
respondent no. 5, Man Singh was awarded
10 years of imprisonment by the trial court.
In paragraph no. 10 of the counter affidavit,
the criminal history of respondent no. 5,
Man Singh as given in the writ petition has
been admitted. In paragraph no. 11 of the
counter affidavit, it has been submitted that
respondent no. 5, Man Singh, has been
validly released after grant of remission in
compliance of Clause 2-C of policy dated
01.08.2018 as mentioned in G.O. No.
564/2018/1106/22-02-2018-07G/2018 as he
had undergone the sentence of 12 years 2
months without remission and 14 years 6
months and 10 days with remission. The
Medical Board had given an opinion that
the convict is having "congestive heart
failure". It has also been submitted that
convict Man Singh, was qualified to be
released under Clause 2-C of policy dated
01.08.2018 and he was rightly released by
the impugned order dated 01.02.2019. In
the counter affidavit, Government Order
dated 01.08.2018 issued by the Karagar
Prashashan Evam Sudhar Anubhag-2, Uttar
Pradesh Shashan, Lucknow has been
attached as Annexure No. 1. The relevant
provisions of Government Order under
which convict respondent no. 5, Man
Singh, has been released is as follows :

2 (ग) आजीवन करावास की सजा से दंडित ऐसे
डसद्धदोष बंदी डजनका अपराध आगे धारा-3 में वडणित प्रडतबंडधत
श्रेणी में इंडगत डकसी भी उपडनयम से अच्छाडदत नहीं है तथा जो
डनम्न में से डकसी बीमारी से ग्रडसत हो एवम डजनके संबंध में उत्तर
प्रदेश जेल मैनुअल के डववरण संख्या 195 में प्रवेडशत मेडिकल
बोिि द्वारा उक्त बीमारी से गंभीर होने का प्रमाण पत्र डदया गया हो
और डजनके द्वारा डवचाराधीन अवडध सडहत 10 वषाि की अपररहार
सजा तथा 12 वषाि की सपररहार सजा व्यतीत कर ली गई हो :

1- Advanced bilateral pulmonary
tuberculosis

2- Incurable malignancy

3- Incurable Blood diseases

4- Congestive heart failure

5- Chronic epilepsy with mental
degeneration

6-
Advanced
leprosy
with
deformities and trophic ulcer

7- Total blindness of both eyes

8- Incurable paraplegias and
hemiplegics

9- Advanced Parkinsonism

10- Brain Tumor

11- Incurable Aneurysms.

12- Irreversible Kidney failure.

3. प्रडतबंडधत श्रेणी (Prohibited Class
which is applicable to respondent no. 5,
Man Singh is) :

(x) ऐसे डसद्धदोष बंदी डजन्हें एक से अडधक
आपराडधक प्रकरणों में आजीवन कारावास के दंि से दंडित डकया
गया है |

9.
According
to
the
aforesaid
government notification, respondent no. 5,
Man Singh's remaining period of sentence
was remitted by the Governor under Article
161 of the Constitution of India as Man
Singh
had
fulfilled
the
following
requirements
as
per
the
provisions
mentioned in the G.O. :-

(i) he had undergone the sentence
of 12 years 2 months without remission;

(ii) the medical board had given
an opinion that the convict is suffering
from ''congestive heart failure' which is one
of the disease mentioned in the G.O.
4 All. Sanjay Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
45

10. The provisions regarding grant of
pardons, etc., by Governor of a State is
given in Article 161 of the Constitution of
India which is as follows :-

161. Power of Governor to grant
pardons, etc., and to suspend, remit or
commute sentences in certain cases.- The
Governor of a State shall have the power to
grant
pardons,
reprieves,
respites
or
remissions of punishment or to suspend,
remit or commute the sentence of any
person convicted of any offence against any
law relating to a matter of which the
executive power of the State extends.

11. Under this Article, the Governor
has the power to grant pardons etc., and to
suspend, remit or commute the sentence of
any person convicted of any offence against
any law "relating to a matter to which the
executive power of the State extends".

12. According to Article 162 of the
Constitution of India, the executive power
of the State extends to matters with respect
to which the Legislature of a State has
power to make laws.

13. The exercise or non-exercise of
pardon power by the President or Governor,
as the case may be, is not immune from
judicial review. The grounds for judicial
review has been laid down in Satpal Vs.
State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 170
which has been referred to with approval
by the Constitution Bench in Bikas
Chatterjee Vs. Union of India and
Another (2004) 7 SCC 634 wherein it was
held as under :-

9. In a Division Bench decision
of this Court in Satpal Vs. State of Haryana
(2000) 5 SCC 170, these very grounds have
been
restated
as:
(i)
the
Governor
exercising the power under Article 161
himself without being advised by the
Government;
or
(ii)
the
Governor
transgressing his jurisdiction; or (iii) the
Governor
passing
the
order
without
application of mind; or (iv) the Governor's
decision is based on some extraneous
consideration; or (v) mala fides. It is on
these grounds that the Court may exercise
its power of judicial review in relation to an
order of the Governor under Article 161, or
an order of the President under Article 172
of the Constitution, as the case may be.

14. In Epuru Sudhakar and Another
Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others (2006) 8
SCC 161, it was held as under :-

34. The position, therefore, is
undeniable that judicial review of the order
of
the
President
or
the
Governor
underArticle 72orArticle 161, as the case
may be, is available and their orders can be
impugned on the following grounds:

(a) that the order has been passed
without application of mind;

(b) that the order is mala fide;

(c) that the order has been passed
on
extraneous
or
wholly
irrelevant
considerations;

(d) that relevant materials have
been kept out of consideration;

(e) that the order suffers from
arbitrariness.

15. The same view was reiterated in
Narayan Dutt and others Vs. State of
Punjab and another, (2011) 4 SCC 353.

16. In Maru Ram Vs. Union of
India, AIR 1980 SC 2147, the Apex Court
expressly stated that the power of pardon,
commutation and release under Article 72
(also under Article 161) cannot run riot and
must keep sensibly to a steady course and
46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that
public
power
"shall
never
be
exercisable arbitrarily or malafide and,
ordinarily, guidelines for fair and equal
execution are guarantors of the valid play
of power."

17. In Swaran Singh Vs. State of
U.P., (1998) 4 SCC 75 where the Governor
grants remission of sentence to a convict in
ignorance of the fact that several other
criminal cases were pending against him.
The court invalidated the remission and
observed that if the power under this article
"was exercised arbitrarily", malafide or in
absolute disregard of the finer canons of the
constitutionalism, the byproduct order
cannot get the approval of law and in such
cases, the judicial hand must be stretched to
it." Thus, the exercise of Governor's power
under Article 161 is subject to judicial
review.

18. This is an admitted fact that
respondent no. 5, Man Singh has been
convicted in S.T. No. 41 of 2007 relating to
Case Crime No. 1463 of 2006 u/s 148,
307/149, 302/149 I.P.C. and 25 Arms Act
and sentenced vide judgement and order
dated 26.08.2009 u/s 302/149 I.P.C. for life
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-.

19. In Gopal Vinayak Godse Vs.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 600,
the Apex Court has held "a sentence of
transportation for life or imprisonment for
life must prima facie be treated as
transportation or imprisonment of the
whole of the remaining period of the
convicted persons natural life."

20. The respondent no. 5, Man Singh
was remitted the remaining period of his
life imprisonment after a period of 12 years
and 2 months by the Governor under
Article 161 of the Constitution of India.
The rules mentioned in the G.O. for
remitting sentence of a convict requires
fulfilment of following conditions :-

(i) the convict had undergone
imprisonment for a period of 10 years
without remission;

(ii) he was suffering from one of
the disease mentioned in the G.O.;

(iii) his case is not covered by
any of the provisions mentioned in the
prohibited class of convicts;

The clause (x) of the prohibition
class
in
the
aforesaid
G.O.
dated
01.08.2018 mentions that the convict
should not have been convicted in more
than 1 criminal case with the sentence of
life imprisonment.

21. Although the convict Man Singh
fulfils the requirement relating to period of
sentence undergone by him and his
suffering
from
one
of
the
disease
"congestive heart failure" mentioned in the
G.O., but his sentence cannot be remitted
as his case is covered under clause (x) of
the exempted class of convicts. Respondent
no. 5, Man Singh has been convicted and
sentenced to life imprisonment in following
two S.T. cases :

(i) S.T. No. 41 of 2007 and

(ii) S.T. No. 26 of 1995, State of
U.P. Vs. Sardar Singh and Others u/s 302,
120-B, 149 I.P.C. relating to P.S.- Seepari
Bazar, District- Jhansi. The petitioner has
filed the judgement of the 2nd S.T. at pages
107 to 154 of Annexure No. 10 of the writ
petition.

22. Thus, respondent no. 5, Man Singh
was not entitled for remission of sentence
under the provisions of the impugned order
issued under G.O. dated 01.08.2018 passed
under Article 161 of the Constitution of
4 All. Yogendra & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
47
India. Apart from this, in the impugned
order by which the respondent no. 5, Man
Singh has been granted remission in his
sentence, there is no notice of the fact that
he has a criminal history of 26 other
criminal cases against him. As it has been
held by the Apex Court in Swaran Singh
(supra) that where the Governor granted
remission of sentence to a convict in
ignorance of the fact that several other
criminal cases were pending against him,
the byproduct order cannot get the approval
of law and in such cases, judicial hand must
be stretched to it.

23. From the above mentioned facts
and circumstances of the case, we are of the
considered opinion that respondent no. 5,
Man Singh was not entitled to remission of
sentence as this case was covered by the
prohibition no. (x) mentioned in above
G.O. dated 01.08.2018 and while granting
remission, his 26 other criminal cases was
not brought to the notice of the Governor.

24. Thus, the impugned order dated
01.08.2018 by which respondent no. 5,
Man Singh was granted remission of
sentence was without authority of law and
is liable to be set-aside.

25. Accordingly, the writ petition
stands allowed. The aforesaid impugned
order
no.
314/22-2-2019-17(150)/2019,
Lucknow
dated
01.02.2019
granting
remission to respondent no. 5, Man Singh
is hereby quashed and set-aside.

26. The respondent no. 5, Man Singh
shall surrender before the Sessions Judge,
Jhansi within 30 days from today and he
will be sent to Central Jail, Agra, to
undergo the remaining part of his sentence.
In case, the respondent no. 5, Man Singh
does not surrender within the aforesaid
period, the Sessions Judge, Jhansi will take
coercive measure to ensure his appearance
before the court and send him to Central
Jail, Agra for undergoing his remaining
sentence.

27. Copy of the order be sent to
Sessions Judge, Jhansi for necessary
compliance.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 47
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4365 of 2022

Yogendra & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Sri Devi Prasad Singh

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 227 - Indian Penal
Code,1860 - Sections 308, 323, 324 & 506
- Criminal Revision - Challenging the order
impugned by which the application of revisionist
for discharging the accused was rejected - FIR
u/s 323, 324 of IPC - allegation of physically
assault - after investigation, charge sheet was
filed u/s 308, 324, 504 & 506 of IPC -
Revisionists are aggrieved by order for framing
charges u/s 308 of IPC in addition - plea taken
by the revisionists that injuries sustained by the
injured persons were not fatal in nature -
Evaluation of Evidence - court finds that, from
the contents of the FIR coupled with medical
evidence, prima facie offence u/s 308 IPC is
made out - at the stage of framing of charge no
in depth enquiry into evidence or credibility
thereto is required - hence, no any illegality or
incorrectness
in
order
so
as
to
justify