EPURU SUDHAKAR Vs. GOVT OF A P
LAWS(SC)-2006-10-40
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on October 11,2006

EPURU SUDHAKAR Appellant
VERSUS
GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

DESH BHUSHAN JAIN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-7-123] [REFERRED TO]
HARISHANKAR GAYAPRASAD JAISWAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 [LAWS(GJH)-2018-3-49] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA NATH DAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2012-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
SATYAVRAT RAI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-77] [REFERRED TO]
PYARE LAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2020-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
DR. ESTHER, MBBS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2022-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
SUO MOTU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2019-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2013-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
S.A. MIYAJAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2014-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
S.A. MIYAJAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2014-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
D. HARISH VS. CHAMPALATHA [LAWS(MAD)-2023-4-59] [REFERRED TO]
WEST BENGAL REGISTRATION COPYWRITERS ASSOCATION VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL SERVICE [LAWS(CAL)-2007-4-52] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY VERMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-4-79] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD BAUDH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-91] [REFERRED TO]
ARELLI ASHOKA BHAI VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-6-104] [REFERRED TO]
MUJEEBUNISSA BEGUM VS. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2014-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA NATH DAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2013-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
SHATRUGHAN CHAUHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2014-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-70] [REFERRED TO]
SIKKANDER VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2021-12-136] [REFERRED TO]
P. VEERA BHAARATHI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2021-11-120] [REFERRED TO]
LAL SINGH @ MANJIT SINGH AND ORS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS AND ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-8-620] [REFERRED]
ANU RADHA VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2009-7-279] [REFERRED]
DEVENDER PAL SINGH BHULLAR VS. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2013-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
REMDEO CHAUHAN ALIAS RAJNATH CHAUHAN VS. BANI KANT DAS [LAWS(SC)-2010-11-41] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. LAL SINGH @ MANJIT SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2016-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
MOIDEEN KOYA T. VS. SECRETARY TO GOVT. & STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2008-7-103] [REFERRED TO]
PUSPARAJ VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-7-297] [REFERRED TO]
E.AYYAPPAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2022-3-154] [REFERRED TO]
JITIN PRASAD AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2011-11-373] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. STATE OF U P THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT AND V N AGARWAL, SPECIAL SECRETARY (TRANSPORT)/HEARING AUTHORITY [LAWS(ALL)-2007-6-85] [REFERRED]
MUKESH KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2020-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. [LAWS(SC)-2016-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2015-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
GEORGEKUTTY Y. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-133] [REFERRED TO]
HARJINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2008-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHWINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2008-3-63] [REFERRED TO]
K. RAJASEKAR VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2022-2-112] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN RAMCHANDRA KAMBLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
T. MOHAMMED ASHRAF VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-5-40] [REFERRED TO]
DAYA NAND VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-2-154] [REFERRED TO]
G BALACHANDRAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2010-8-173] [REFERRED TO]
T MOIDEEN KOYA VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(KER)-2008-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
DURAIRAJ VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
B P SINGHAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2010-5-38] [REFERRED TO]
YERNENI RAJA RAMCHANDER ALIAS RAJABABU VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(SC)-2009-8-105] [RELIED ON]
UNION OF INDIA VS. V. SRIHARAN @ MURUGAN [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
VINAY SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2020-2-43] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS [LAWS(APH)-2011-3-128] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKRISHNA VS. SECRETARY HOME DEPT VIDHANA SOUDHA [LAWS(KAR)-2012-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
A.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O. V.S.ANANDAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2017-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
A SRINIVAS REDDY VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2012-4-54] [REFERRED TO]
SUMANBAI ALIAS SHEKHAR MAHIRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-3-112] [REFERRED TO]
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-2-547] [REFERRED]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. MAHENDER SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2007-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
NAGARATHNA ALIAS RATHNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2009-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SUSHMA SONI [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
RADHAKRISHNAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-179] [REFERRED TO]
N. MAREESWARI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-1-929] [REFERRED TO]
BANI KANTA DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(SC)-2009-5-92] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED ISHAQ VS. S KAZAM PASHA [LAWS(SC)-2009-5-191] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN DUTT VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2011-2-80] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. JAGDISH [LAWS(SC)-2010-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
THENTHAMIZHAN ALIAS KATHIRAVAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-553] [REFERRED TO]
S NALINI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-9-195] [REFERRED TO]
A SRINIVAS REDDY VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2011-4-96] [REFERRED TO]
VADLAMANI SRINIVAS @ SRINIVAS VS. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE [LAWS(APH)-2013-2-5] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Challenge in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') is to the order passed by Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary whereby Gowru Venkata Reddy-respondent No.2 was granted remission of unexpired period of about seven years imprisonment. GOMs. No.170 dated 11.8.2005 in this regard is challenged.
(2.)Factual scenario as per petitioners is as follows:
Petitioner No.1 is the son of late Sh. Epuru Chinna Ramasubbaiah who was murdered along with another person on 19.10.1995. Petitioner No.2 claims to be the son of one late Sh. Tirupati Reddy who was allegedly murdered by respondent No.2 while he was on bail in the murder case of father of petitioner No.1. In the case relating to the murder of late Sh. Epuru Chinna Ramasubbaiah and one Ambi Reddy, respondent No.2 faced trial and ultimately the matter came before this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 519-521 of 2003 which was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 19.11.2003 and the conviction of respondent No.2 was altered from one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') to Section 304(1) read with Section 109 IPC and custodial sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment was imposed. Conviction relating to some other sentences was maintained. On 28.5.2003, the respondent No.3 wife of respondent No.2 submitted a representation for grant of parole to respondent No.2 and on 18.10.2003 parole was granted for a period of 15 days but the same was cancelled on 30.10.2003 by the State Government in view of the report sent by Superintendent of Police, Kurnool that on account of respondent No.2's release on parole there was a likelihood of breach of peace and law and order if the respondent No.2 visits Nandikotkur Assembly Constituency. Respondent No.3 contested the election to the Andhra Pradesh Assembly Election and on 12.5.2004 was elected as member of Legislative Assembly. On 14.5.2004 she made a representation for grant of parole to respondent No.2. Same was granted on 19.5.2004 and was extended from time to time. On 18.7.2004 fourth extension for 15 days was granted. On 10.10.2004 respondent No.3 made a representation to respondent No.1 seeking pardon to respondent No.2 by exercise of power under Article 161 of the Constitution alleging that he was implicated in false cases due to political rivalry. On 18.10.2004 during the pendency of the petition for pardon, one month parole was granted. On 11.8.2005 the Governor of Andhra Pradesh purportedly exercised power under Article 161 of the Constitution and granted remission of the unexpired sentence of respondent No.2. Director General and Inspector General of Police (Correction Services) Andhra Pradesh were directed to take action for release of respondent No.2 and in fact on 12.8.2005 the Superintendent of Central Prison, Cherlapally, R.R. District directed release of respondent No.2.

(3.)The writ petition has been filed inter alia alleging that the grant of remission (described in the writ petition as grant of pardon) was illegal, relevant materials were not placed before the Governor, and without application of mind impugned order was passed. The recommendations made for grant of remission were based on irrelevant and extraneous materials. The factual scenario has not been placed before the Governor in the proper perspective. The sole basis on which respondent No.3 asked for pardon was alleged implication in false cases due to political rivalry. In view of this Court's judgment holding the respondent No.2 guilty, the said plea could not have been even considered as a basis for grant of pardon. Since the grant of pardon is based on consideration of irrelevant materials and non-consideration of relevant materials the same is liable to be set aside.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.