AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Sinha, J
Heard Mr. Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents.
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s):
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the grievance of the petitioner from the respondent authorities.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct to respondent to considered application filed by the petitioner for released on remission an accordance with direction issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Laxman Naskar Vs. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 595.
10.3 That this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take fresh application for releasing on remission, from the petitioner and decide the same in the light of provisions of law.
10.4 Cost of the litigation/petition be allowed.
10.5 Any other relief(s) may be given to the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Mr. Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of RS. 5000/- by the learned Session Judge Rajanandgaon vide judgment dated 21.07.2010 passed in S.T. No. 86/2009. The petitioner is serving his jail sentence at Central Jail, Durg, since 20.05.2009. He preferred an appeal before this Hon'ble High Court, as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court which were dismissed affirming the order passed by the learned trial court.
Mr. Jain further submits that as the petitioner is in jail and in a helpless condition therefore, he filed an application through his mother for his release on remission. The Jail authorities forwarded the said application to the respondent No.4, but respondent No.4 has not taken any action upon the same. Hence, this petition for the reliefs as prayed above.
Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that in fact the petitioner had moved an application which was a mercy petition to the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution of India which has been dismissed and a communication in this regard has already been sent to the mother of the petitioner on 28.03.2023. Learned State counsel has produced a copy of the communication dated 28.03.2023 of the Under Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Jail, Raipur, which is taken on record.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
From perusal of the communication dated 28.03.2023, it transpires that the representation of the petitioner was considered in exercise of powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India by Hon’ble the Governor of the State of Chhattisgarh and the same has been rejected and further, an information in this regard has also been sent to the mother of the petitioner which is evident from the endorsement made in the said communication.
In view of the above, if the petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his representation by Hon’ble the Governor as aforesaid, he is at liberty to take recourse to law, if so advised.
With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of.