- (1.) S. H. A. Raza, J. A common question of facts and law arises in all these writ peti tions, which have been filed by the convicts who have completed more than thirty years of sentence with remission on 15th August, 1995 praying that they may be ordered to be released in pursuance of the Government Order No. 2879/22-2- 94-18 (48)-94 (Home Prison) Anubhag-2 dated 25th July 1994. Most of the convicts were sentenced to un dergo life imprisonment for committing an offence under Section 302/201 IPC and other offences punishable under Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE aforesaid Government Order has been issued in the name of the Governor of Ultra Pradesh in excercise of his power contained in Article 161 of the Constitution of India. Similar order were issued by the Government Order no. 4170/22-2-94-18 (82)-94 (Home Prison) Anubhag -2, dated 25th Oct. , 1994 which provided that three convicts who have completed on 2nd Oct. , 1994 a sentence of twenty-five years with remission and their conduct in jail has been found to be good, shall be released on bail. THE said Govt. Orders were subjected to following terms and conditions: (1) Only those prisoners shall be released who have been convicted by the Courts in Uttar Pradesh and the State Government was empowered to release them. (2) THE following prisoners shall not be entitled for release: (a) whose appeals or revisions were pending in any Court on 15th August, 1994 or on 15th August, 1994 they were released on bail under the order passed by the Court. (b) THE prisoner who is the resident of any foreign country, if there existed any do u ht about the citizenship of that prisoner then in that situation before releasing him, it would be necessary to get the matter verified through the District Magistrate of Superintendent of Police; (c) THE prisoners who have been con victed by the Court Marshal. (d) Persons detained. (e) THE prisoners convicted for com mitting an offence under Foreigner's Act and Indian Passport Act. (f) Prisoners convicted under the provisions of Section 3 to 10 of the Officers Secret Act, 1967. (g) Prisoners convicted under Sections 2 and 3 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and convicted for committing an offenns under Sections 121 to 131 of I. P. C. (h) Habitual convicts. (i) Convicts/detenu under the provisions of Sections 106 to 110 Cr. P. C. (j) Prisoners convicted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 amended from time to time and con victs under going sentence for committing offences under Chapter 9,10 and 11 of the Indian Penal Code. (k) Convicts sentenced for committing an offence to outrage the modesty of ladies through force. It was argued very vehemently on behalf of the petitioners that the said Government Order is manifestly unjust, un fair and unreasonable. If a person has been awarded life sentence for committing a mur der under Section 302 IPC and had also been punished for committing an offence causing disappearance of evidence of the offence u/s. 201 IPC. and they had under went the punishment for committing an of fence u/s. 201 IPC say for a period of three years, to ten years, and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, then it would be unfair to deny them the benefit of the Govt. Order. It was submitted when a person who has committed a murder, which is The most heinous crime, could be ordered to be released, while the other person who has also been convicted for minor offences, along with the murder and had undergone the sentence cannot be released. It was submitted that in most of the offences, which have been included in the Government Order a life sentence cannot be awarded, hence its mention, was not at all proper. It seems that the State Government in a most mechanical, casual and cursory manner, issued the present Government Order, hence all those terms and conditions, which have been enforced in the Govern ment Order, deserves to be ignored or quashed, and the petitioners be ordered to be released forthwith as they have com pleted more then twenty-five years or thirty years sentence in jail, on the relevant date mentioned in the G. O. as their conduct in jail was good throughout.
(3.) A perusal of the Government Order reveals that the aforesaid G. O. was issued in the name of Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of his constitutional powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. While suspending, remitting or commuting a sentence, the Governor acts under a con stitutional power and the manner of exer cise of that power depends upon his descretion. The power is of widest amplitude and is absolute, which has been conferred by the Constitution, and is not subject to statutory provision and a held in the case of Kehar Singh, AIR 1989 SC 653:1989 JIC 471 (SC ). The Court cannot suggest, even guidelines to the Governor, because it is presumed that the Governor has acted properly after an objective consideration, while commuting a sentence. The power of the Court is limited and only in exceptional cases where the reasons given by the Gover nor are frrelevant or where the exercise of power is vitiated by self-denial on apprecia tion of the full amplitude of the power con ferred the Court can interfere.;