# STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. RATAN SINGH & ORS

- **Citation:** [1976] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 552
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-05-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 1971
- **Bench:** A. C. Gupta, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-madhya-pradesh-v-ratan-singh-ors-7178
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Code of c·rin1inal Procedu.re-Ss. 401 and 40-2-Convicted for impriMnn1e11t
for life by one State-Priso_ner transferred to his native State-Appropriate
Gorenunent which could remit sentence.
The respondent was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by
a court in the State· of Madhya Pradesh. At his request be was transferred to
a jail in the State of Punjab, to which State he belonged.
He applied to the
Government of Punjab that under the Punjab Jail Manual he is entitled to
be released since he had completed more than 20 years of imprisonment. The
applicition was sent to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, which rejected it.
In a writ petition filed by him the High Court of Ponjab and Haryana held that
the State of Punjab was the appropriate authority to release him and directed
the State of Punjab to consider the matter.
In appeal to this Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh contended : (i) that
since 1he sentence was of imprisonment for life, it would not expire automatically
at the expiry of' 20' years including remissions; and (ii) that as the priooner was
convicted by a court in the State of Madhya Pradesh the appropriate Government to exercise discretion under ss. 401 and 402 Cr.P.C. was the State of
Madhya Pradesh and not the State of Punjab,
Allowing the appealJ
HELD : The High Court was in error in holding that the respondent was
entitled to be released as of right on completing the tern1 of 20 years including
remissions.
[556C]
Gopal Vinayak Godse v. 6tc<e of Maharashtra and Others, [1%1] 3 S.C.R.
440 and Pandit Kislzori Lal v. King E1nperor, L.R. 72 I.A. 1, followed.
( 1) A sentence of imprisonment for life does not automatically expire at
the end of 20 years including remissions because the administrative rules framed
under the various Jail Manuals or under the Prisons Act canoot supersede the·
statutory provisions of the· Indian Penal Code. A sentence of imprisonment
for life means a sentence for the entire life of the· prisoner unless the appropriate Government chooses to exercise its discretion to remit either the whole or
a part of the sentence under s. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [559G]
(2) The appropriate Government has the discretion to remit or refuse to
remit the sentence and where it refuses to remit the sentence no writ can be
issued directing the State Government to release the prisoner. [560A]
(a) The appropriate Government which is empowered to grant remission
under s. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the Government of the State
where 'the prisoner had been convicted and sentenced, that is, the transferor Slate
and not the transferee State where the prisoner may have been transferred at
his instance under the Transfer of Prisoners Act.
[560B]
(b) Where the transferee State feels that the accused had completed a
period of 20 years it haSJ merely to forward the request of the prisoner to the
Government of the State where the prisoner was convicted and sentenced and
if this request was rejected by the State Government the /order of the Government cannot be interfered with by a High Court in its writ jllrisdiction. [56'0D]
'
'
,
M.P. STATE v. RATAN SINGH (Fazal Ali, J.)
553
[Since the respondent was released 1n pursuance of the order of th~ High
Court, the release order was allowed to stand.]

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
552
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
RATAN SINGH & ORS.
May 5, 1976
(A. C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.]
Code of c·rin1inal Procedu.re-Ss. 401 and 40-2-Convicted for impriMnn1e11t
for life by one State-Priso_ner transferred to his native State-Appropriate
Gorenunent which could remit sentence.
The respondent was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by
a court in the State· of Madhya Pradesh. At his request be was transferred to
a jail in the State of Punjab, to which State he belonged.
He applied to the
Government of Punjab that under the Punjab Jail Manual he is entitled to
be released since he had completed more than 20 years of imprisonment. The
applicition was sent to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, which rejected it.
In a writ petition filed by him the High Court of Ponjab and Haryana held that
the State of Punjab was the appropriate authority to release him and directed
the State of Punjab to consider the matter.
In appeal to this Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh contended : (i) that
since 1he sentence was of imprisonment for life, it would not expire automatically
at the expiry of' 20' years including remissions; and (ii) that as the priooner was
convicted by a court in the State of Madhya Pradesh the appropriate Government to exercise discretion under ss. 401 and 402 Cr.P.C. was the State of
Madhya Pradesh and not the State of Punjab,
Allowing the appealJ
HELD : The High Court was in error in holding that the respondent was
entitled to be released as of right on completing the tern1 of 20 years including
remissions.
[556C]
Gopal Vinayak Godse v. 6tc<e of Maharashtra and Others, [1%1] 3 S.C.R.
440 and Pandit Kislzori Lal v. King E1nperor, L.R. 72 I.A. 1, followed.
( 1) A sentence of imprisonment for life does not automatically expire at
the end of 20 years including remissions because the administrative rules framed
under the various Jail Manuals or under the Prisons Act canoot supersede the·
statutory provisions of the· Indian Penal Code. A sentence of imprisonment
for life means a sentence for the entire life of the· prisoner unless the appropriate Government chooses to exercise its discretion to remit either the whole or
a part of the sentence under s. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [559G]
(2) The appropriate Government has the discretion to remit or refuse to
remit the sentence and where it refuses to remit the sentence no writ can be
issued directing the State Government to release the prisoner. [560A]
(a) The appropriate Government which is empowered to grant remission
under s. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the Government of the State
where 'the prisoner had been convicted and sentenced, that is, the transferor Slate
and not the transferee State where the prisoner may have been transferred at
his instance under the Transfer of Prisoners Act.
[560B]
(b) Where the transferee State feels that the accused had completed a
period of 20 years it haSJ merely to forward the request of the prisoner to the
Government of the State where the prisoner was convicted and sentenced and
if this request was rejected by the State Government the /order of the Government cannot be interfered with by a High Court in its writ jllrisdiction. [56'0D]
'
'
,
M.P. STATE v. RATAN SINGH (Fazal Ali, J.)
553
[Since the respondent was released 1n pursuance of the order of th~ High
Court, the release order was allowed to stand.]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 246
of 1971.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
13th May 1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Comt in Crimi,nal
Original No. 61-M of 1971.
Ram Panjwani, Deputy Advocate General, M.P., Ii. S. Parihar,
•
and l. N. Shroff, for the Appellants.
0. P. Sharma, M. S. Dhillon and S. K. Mehta, for Responder.ts
Nos. 2 to 4.
Nemu for Respondent No. I.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL Au, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against
A
B
c
the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated May 13,
D
1971 by which the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the
respondent Ratan Singh a prisoner who was confined in Central Jail,
Amritsar. The appeal arises in the following circumstances.
The respondent Ratan Singh was convicted by the Sessions Judge,
" r Bhind in the State of Madhya Pradesh by his order dated October 16,
1957 under s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
An appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the Sessions
Judge was dismissed by the High Court on May 19, 1959. Thereafter
the accused made a prayer to the Government for transferring hin:
from Gwalior Jail to Amritsar as the accused/respondent belonged
to Punjab State.
The representation of the accused was accepted and
accordingly he was transferred to the Punjab Jail where he was lodged
at Central Jail, Amritsar.
The order of transfer
was
passed
on
October 15, 1959. The respondent contended that as he had completed the period of 20 years' imprisonment including the remissions
granted under the Punjab Jail Manual he was entitlcJ to be released
forthwith and he accordingly made an application for his release to
the Punjab Government. In fact the admitted position is that OH
May 7, 1971 the accused had undergone imprisonment for a period
of 25 years 18 days and 19 hours taking into account the various
remissions granted to him from time to time.
The Government of
Punjab forwarded the representation of the respondent to the Government of Madhya Pradesh for passing an order of release.
On April
18, 1971 the State of Madhya Pradesh rejected the request of the
respondent for his release.
Thereafter the accused/respondent filed
a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana on the ground
that the accused having served the sentence for more than 20 years
was entitled to be released as a matter of course under the provisions
of the Punjab Jail Manual and the Rules framed under the Prisons
Act. It was also contended by the respondent that as he was lodged
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] SUPPLEMENTARY
in a jail under the jurisdiction of the Punjab Government, the appropriate Government to order his release was the Punjab Government
and not the Government of Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, the
request made by the Punjab Government to the Madhya Pradesh
Government was not warranted by law.
The High Court without
issuing notice to the State of Madhya Pradesh and after hearing the
Advocate-General accepted the plea taken by the. respondent and held
that Punjab State was the appropriate authority to release the respondent
The High Court relied upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Sitaram Bare/al v. State of Madhya Pradesh(') and
directed that as the respondent had already served more than 20 years
11e was entitled to be released forthwith.
Accordingly the High
Court allowed the petition and directed the
State Go?crnmcnt
to
con>ider the case of the respondent for being released and dispose·
of t:;e case within 20 days from the date of the order of the High
Court.
It appears that in pursuance of the order of the High Court
the :·espondent was released.
The State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this appeal by special
leave against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on
the ground that in law it was the Madhya Pradesh Government alone
which had the power to remit the sentence and release the prisoner
a:id t11e High Court was in error in holding that the Punjab Government could pass the order of release.
Appearing in support of the
apμeal Mr. Ram Panjwani learned counsel submitted two points
before us.
In the first place it was argued that the
High
Court
ccmipletel y overlooked the legal position that a sentence of imprisonmcn; for life could not be said to be a sentence which would expire
c,ul0matically after the expiry of 20 years including remissions.
The
se::tence would enure till the life time of the prisoner but the State
Government had the discretion under ss. 401 and 402 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to remit the remaining part of th.e sentence and'
order release of the prisoner.
Secondly, it was submitted that as the
prisoner was convicte.d by a Court situate in the State of Madhya
Pradesh the appropriate Government was the Madhya Pradesh Government and not the Punjab Government where the prisoner was transferred
to exercise its discretion under s. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
No one appeared for the respondent, but at the time of granting
special leave, this Court had ordered that the release of the prisoner
would not be reopened even if. the appeal succeeded.
In other words
the State of Madhya Pradesh in this case is not concerned with the·
individual
case of the respondent but only wants an authoritative
decision on the important principle involved in the case.
As regards the first point, namely, that the prisor~er could be
released automatically on the expiry of 20 years under the Punjab JaiT
Manual or the Rules framed under the Prisons Act, the matter is
no longer
res integra
and stands concluded by a decision of this;
(I) AIR 1969 M.P. 252.
!
•
I
'
'
'
(
•
M.P. STATE v. RATAN SINGH (Fazed Ali, J.)
555
Court in Go pal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra and Others(!),
A
where the Court, following a decision of the Privy Council in Pandit
Kishori Lni v. King-Emperor(') observed as follows :
"Under that section, a person transported for lil'e or any
other term before the enactment of the said section would
be treated as a person sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for life or for the said term.
If so, the next question is whether there is any provision
of law whereunder a sentence for life imprisonment, without
any formal remission by appropriate• Government, can be
automatically treated as one for a definite period.
No such
provision is found in the Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal
Procedure or the Prisons Act.
*
A sentence of transportation for life or imprisonment for
life must prima facie
be
treated
as
transportation
or
imprisonment for the whole of the remaining periocl of the
convicted person's natural .Jife."
The Court further observed thus :
"But the Prisons Act does not confer on any authority
a power to commute or remit sentences; it provides only
for the regulation of prisons and for the treatment of prisoners confined therein.
Section 59 of the Prisons Act confers
a power on the State Government to make rules, inter alia,
for rewards for good conduct.
Therefore, the rules made
under the Act should be construed within the scope of the
ambit of the Act. * * * Under the said rules the orders
of an appropriate Government under s. 401, Criminal Procedure Code, are a pre-requisite for a release.
No other rule
has been brought to our notice which confers an indefeaslble
right on a prisoner sentenced to transportation for life to
an unconditional release on the expiry of a particular term
including remissions.
The rules under the Prisons Act do
not substitute a lesser sentence for a sentence of transportation for life."
"The question of remission is exclusively
within
the
province of the appropriate Government; and in this case it
is admitted that, thongh the appropriate Government made
certain remissions under s. 40 l of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, it did not remit the entire sentence.
We, therefore, hold that the petitioner has not yet acquired any right
to release."
It is, therefore, manifest from the decision of this Court that the Rules
framed under the Prisons Act or under the Jail Manual do not affect
the total period which the prisoner has to suffer but merely amount
(1) [1961/ J S.C.R. 440.
(2) L.R. 72 IA. I.
c
D
E
F
m
A
c
n
E
:F
55 6
SUPREMjl COURT REPORTS
[1976] SUPPLE~4ENTARY
to administrative instructions regarding the various remis;ions to be
given to the prisoner from time to time in accordance with the rules.
This Court further pointed out that the question of remission of the
entire sentence or a part of it lies within the exclusive domain of the
appropriate Government under s. 401 of the Code of Crim;rral Procedure and neither s. 57 of the Indian Penal Code nor any Rules or
local Acts can stultify the effect of the sentence of life imprisonment
given by the Court under the Indian Penal Code.
In other words,
this Court has clearly held that a sentence for life would enure till
the life-time of the accused as it is not possible to .fix a particular
period of the prisoner's death so any remissions given under the Rules
could not be regarded as a substitute for a sentence of tra:bp0rtation
for life.
In these circumstances, therefore, it is clear tlrnt the High
Court was in error in thinking that the respondent was entitled to
be released as of right on completing the term of 20 years including
the remissions.
For these reasons, therefore, the first contention raised
by the learned counsel for the appellant is well founded and must
prevail.
The next plank of the argument put forward by Mr. Ram Panjwani
was that under s. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was the
State of Madhya Pradesh where the accused was convicted which alone
had the power to grant remission and order release of the prisoner.
It was submitted that the transfer of the accused from the State of
Madhya Pradesh to the State of Punjab was made merely at the
instance of the prisoner and for his convenience and eollkl 11,11 clothe
the transferee State with the power to pass an order under s. 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. In order to understand the implications of the argument put forward by the appellant it may be necessary
to extract the relevant provisions of s. 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure which run thus :
"401. (1) When any person has been sentenced to
punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may
at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which
the person sentenced accepts suspend the execution of his
sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment
to which he has been sentenced.
(2) Whenever an application is made to the appropriate
Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence,
the appropriate Government,
may require
the
presiding
Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was
had or confirmed to state bis opinion
as to whether the
application should be granted or refused, together with his
reasons
for such opinion
and also to forward with the
statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of
the trial or of such record thereof as exists."
;JI
A perusal of s. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would reveal
that the section consists of two parts-the first part confers an absolute
discretion on the appropriate Government to remit the whole or any
part of the punishment to which the accused may have been sentenced.
'
•
) .
-
'
A
(
'
M.P. STATE v. RATAN SINGH (Fazal Ali, J.)
557
The words used in sub-s. (1) as also sub-s. (2) of s. 401 clearly
A
show that the power is exercised by the "appropriate Government".
The expression "appropriate Govermnent" appears to have been substituted for the expression "Provincial Government" by Amendment
Act 1950. Previously the words used were "Provincial Government".
Sub-section (2) of s. 401 of the Code of Crimina:l Procedure, however,
enjoins that before exercising its discretion on an application made
to the appropriate Government for remission of the
sentence,
the
B
appropriate Government may require the presiding Judge of the Court
which convicted the prisoner to state his opinion whether the application should be granted or refused. Thus the procedure laid down in
sub-s. (2) of s. 401 gives a clear indication as to the real meaning
and purport of the words "appropriate Government". It is obvious
that only that Govermnent can call for the opinion of the presiding
Judge of the Court which has control over the said presiding Judge
C
or the Court which is situated within the jurisdiction of the said
Government.
As a logical corollary of the interpretation of sub-s. (2)
of s. 401 it is the State where the accused was convicted which alone
has the power to grant remissions of the sentence.
In the instant
case the Punjab Government had absolutely no control or jurisdiction
o»er the Sessions Judge, Bhind in the State of Madhya Pradesh and
could not have called for an
opinion from. that Court.
In these
D
circumstances there can be no .shadow of doubt that the appropriate
Govermnent mentioned in sub-s. (!) and sub-s. (2) of s. 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure refers to the Govermnent of the State
\Vl1crc the accused was convicted, that is to say, the transferor Government and not the transferee Govermnent.
Any such transfer of the
accused from a jail situate in one State to a jail in some other State
has absolutely no bearing on the question as to the application of
E
s. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because this is merely an
executive matter and an executive decision taken to meet the
convenience of the accused.
Furthermore, the position is made absolutely clear by sub-s. (3)
to s. 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which runs thus :
''In this section and in section 401, the expression
"appropriate Government" shall mean -
F
(a) in cases where the sentence is for an offence against,
or the order referred to in sub-section ( 4A) of section
401 is passed under, any law relating to a matter to
which the executive power of the Union 0xtends, the
Central Government; and
G
(b) in other cases, the State Government."
A perusal of this provision olearly reveals that the test to determine
··. the appropriate Government is to locate the State where the accused·
was convicted and sentenced and the Government of that State would
be the appropriate Government within the meaning of s. 40 I of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Thus since the prisoner in the instant
case was tried, convicted and sentenced in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
the State of Madhya Pradesh would be the appropriate Government
H
A
c
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] SUPPLEMENTARY
to exercise the discretion for remission of the sentence under s. 401 ( 1)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Although the present case is
governed by the old Code, yet we may mention that the new Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has put the matter completely beyond
any controversy and has reiterated the provisions of s. 402 ( 3) in
sub-s. (7) of s. 432 which provides thus :
"(7) In this section and in section 433, the expression
"appropfiate Government" means,-
(a) in cases where the sentence is for an offi.:ncc a.-~ainst,
or the order referred to in sub-section ( 6) is passed
under, any law relating to a matter to which the
executive power of the Union extends, the Central
Government;
(b) in other cases, the Government of the State within
which the offender is sentenced or the said order is
passed."
Actually this clause
has been bodily lifted from the provisions of
s. 402 ( 3) and has made the position absolutely clear.
D
In Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.( 1) a Division Bench of
E
F
G
H
the Punjab & Haryana High Court has also taken the view that the
appropriate Government would be the Government of the State where
the prisoner has been convicted and sentenced.
The Division Bench
of the Court after an exhaustive discussion of the various provisions
of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
Rules
C'bserved
as
follows :
"There is, however, nothing to indicate
that for
the
purposes of remission and suspension of sentences under
section 401, Criminal Procedure Code,
the
Legislature
intended to adopt a different definition of 'appropriate Government'.
In short, under section 401, Criminal Procedure
Code, the Government of the State of conviction and not
the Punjab Government was competent to remit the balance
of the sentence of these life convicts.
All that the Punjab
Government could do was to forward the cases of these
life-convicts to the appropriate Government for remitting the
remaining term of their life imprisonment, in exercise of the
power under section 401, Criminal Procedure Code.
The
Punjab Government has already made such a re!erence in
favour of the petitioners to the Governments of the States
of conviction.
Neither the Punjab Government nor
the
Superintendent of Jail concerned can release the priso1>ers
under any of the statutory rules contained in Punjab Jail
Manual without receiving the necessary orders of the appropriate Government under section 401. Pending the receipt
of orders of the J!ppropriate Government,
therefore,
the
detention of the petitioners could not by any reasoning, be
called illegal."
(1) Criminal Writ No. 11 of 1971 decided on 26-5-72.
'
•
\
•
-
•
I
,
'
'>·
M.P. STATE v. RATAN SINGH (Fazal Ali, J.)
5 59
We find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the
A
Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Before closing the judgment, we may refer lo Sitaram Bare/a/'s case
(supra) which forms the sheet-anchor of the decision of the High
Court in the instant case.
To begin with that case does uot deal
with the identical point involved in the present case.
In that case, the
Stale Government had exercised a s.tatutory power umlcr a Speciai
Act passed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, nmncly, the :Vfadhy<c
Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act 16 of 1954.
Under the
provisions of that Act the State Government was gi>'en the power to
release prisoners found to have been of good conduct by imposing
certain conditions for their release.
It was not a case \\'here the
Government was exercising its discretion under s. 40 l !)!" the Code ol
Criminal Procedure for remission of a part of the scatence att<r the
accused had served the sentence for 20 years and claimed to be
released.
Secondly the power for a temporary release of the prisoner
was conferred by the said Act on the State of Madhya Pradesh under
certain conditions.
The Government was, therefore,
exercising
a
statutory power.
In these circumstances the facts in Si:aram Bare/al's
case (supra) were quite different from the facts of the present case. It
is true that the prisoner in that case was lodged in a jail in the State
of Maharashtra but in view of the provisions of lhe Special Act a
particular State Government alone was empowered to exercise its
discretion under the provisions of s. 2 of the said Act.
In the instant
c:i.se there is no such Act at all in the State of Punjab & Haryana
which could have provided any justification for the
said
State
to
I exercise its power to release the prisoner.
Thirdly, as already stated
the power conferred by the Act was merely a power to release tho
prisoner on a temporary basis subject to certain conditions which
is not the case here at all.
In these circumstances the High Court
was not at all justified in relying on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sitaram Barela/' s case (supra) for the proposition
that the Punjab Government would be the appropriate Government
to exercise power under s. 401 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
From a review of the authorities and the statutory provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure the following propositions emerge :
(1)
(2)
that a sentence of imprisonment for life does not
automatically expire at the end of 20 years including
the remissions, because the administrative rules framed
under the various Jail Manuals or under the Prisons
Act cannot supersede the statutory provisions of the
Indian Penal Code.
A sentence of imprisonment for
life means a sentence for the entire life of the prisoner
unless the appropriate Government chooses to exercise its discretion to remit either the whole or a part
of the sentence under s. 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure;
that the appropriate Government has the undoubted
discretion to remit or refuse to remit the >entence
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
5 60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] SUPPLEMENTARY
I
A
and where it refuses to remit the sentence no writ
"
can be issued directing the
State
Government to
1
release the prisoner;
(3) that the appropriate Government which is empowered
to grant remission under s. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the Government of the State wl1ere
B
the prisoner has been convicted and sentenced, that
\
is to say, the transferor State and not the transferee
State where the prisoner may have been transferred
•
at his instance under the Transfer of Prisoneq; Act;
and
•
(4) that where the transferee State feels that the accused
c
has completed a period of 20 years it has merely to
forward the request of the prisoner to the concerned
State Government, that is to say, the Government of
-
the State where the prisoner was
convicted
and
sentenced and even if this request is rej,,cted by the
State Government the order of the
Government
cannot be interfered with by a High Court in its
,,
D
writ jurisdiction.
For these reasons, therefore, we are satisfied that the view taken
by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the instant case is erroneous
and cannot be supported in law.
We accordingly allow the appeal,
set aside the order of the High Court.
But as tbe respondent has
~
ah'eady been released, the order of release of the respondent shall
stand.
'
P.B.R.
Appeal allowed.