Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In connection with this, Yasudeen faced a prosecution in C.C.No.73 of 2001, in which, the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, convicted him of the offences under Sections 353, 294(b) and 506(I) IPC and sentenced him to undergo various terms of imprisonment, the maximum being 2 years simple imprisonment.

2.4. While that being so, to commemorate the Birth Centenary of Peraringnar Anna, the State issued G.O.1155, ordering premature release of 1,405 convict prisoners by virtue of exercise of powers by the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. Further, to commemorate the Birth Centenary of Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, the State issued a fresh remission Government Order, viz., G.O.64, ordering premature release of 1,650 convict prisoners as done in the case of G.O. 1155, as stated above.

10. In Satish (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938, which provided for the premature release of convict prisoners on certain grounds. Since the Uttar Pradesh Government had not properly applied the said https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis provision, the Supreme Court had to intervene and direct release of the convict prisoners therein. In Tamil Nadu, we do not have any enactment akin to Uttar Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938. In Tamil Nadu, the State would normally announce schemes, from time to time, for the premature release of convict prisoners and only if a person becomes eligible for consideration under such a scheme, will the Government examine his case and decide, either to grant or not to grant premature release to him under Article 161, ibid. The Governor would pass orders based on the advice of the Cabinet. Since the impugned order under challenge in this case has been passed under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, we have to examine its validity on the anvil of the law relating to judicial review of an order passed under Article 161, ibid.

17. It is trite that when a person is sentenced to imprisonment for life, he is required to undergo the imprisonment until the end of his natural life. Of course, the State has the sovereign power to remit the sentence. Under our Constitutional scheme, the Court cannot issue a mandamus to the Governor to act under Article 161, ibid., but, can only judicially review the order of the Governor within certain parameters. In Epuru Sudhakar and Another Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others [(2006) 8 SCC 161], the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 65 that “the President and the Governor are the sole judges of the sufficiency of facts and of the appropriateness of granting the pardons and reprieves”. Further, in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis paragraph 66, it has been held as follows :

19. As regards the power of this Court to judicially review the order of the President/Governor passed under Article 72/161, ibid., the Supreme Court has opined in Epuru Sudhakar (supra) as under :

“34. The position, therefore, is undeniable that judicial review of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the order of the President or the Governor under Article 72 or Article 161, as the case may be, is available and their orders can be impugned on the following grounds: