(A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.)
The State of Punjab & Ors. _________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
Vijay Kumar _____________________________________ Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 833 of 2018 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5086 of 2016], decided on July 6, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The respondent herein who was convicted in FIR No. 142 dated 28.02.2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 149 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by judgment and order dated 12.02.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. The appeal filed challenging the said conviction was also dismissed by the High Court on 28.02.2008.
4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the writ petition filed by the respondent before the High Court seeking his premature release, the High Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, directed appellant No. 3 for consideration of the case. Pursuant thereto, the case of the respondent for premature release was duly considered by the Governor of the State of Punjab and the same was rejected vide Order dated 5.12.2013 having regard to the brutal, heinous and inhuman offence committed by the respondent. Against this rejection, the respondent once again approached the High Court by filing another writ petition. The High Court vide Order dated 01.09.2015, has set aside the Order dated 5.12.2013 passed by the Governor of the State of Punjab and allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent sans giving any observation or reasons therefor. It is this order which is impugned in the present appeal.
5. Article 161 of the Constitution of India specifically confers upon the Governor the power to grant remission. In our opinion, the High Court ought not to have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction while setting aside the said order and releasing the respondent that too without giving any reasons whatsoever for taking such a view. On this ground alone, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for de novo consideration, in accordance with law.
6. The appeal is allowed as indicated above.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5086/2016
The State of Punjab & Ors _________________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
Vijay Kumar ____________________________________ Respondent
(IA 11163/2016-ISSUE OF BAILABLE WARRANT OF ARREST)
Date : 06-07-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Raj Kamal, Adv.
Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR
Mr. Benant Noor Singh Marok, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
7. Leave granted.
8. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
9. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
———
