The said numberification, as it is clear from its text, was issued in exercise of the powers companyferred by Article 161 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner applied his case for remission of sentence to be companysidered under the said numberification.
However, the affidavit has number been filed, but learned companynsel appearing for the State has filed a statement showing the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner at different stages and the said statement has number been denied by the companynsel appearing for the petitioner.
64 of 1992, the High Court by its judgment dated 7th June, 2002 dismissed the same companyfirming the companyviction and sentence of the appellant.
On an appeal being filed by the appellant vide A. No.
The sentences were however to run companycurrently.
When the matter was listed on 26th September, 2011, this Court directed learned companynsel for the State to furnish an affidavit stating therein what is the actual period of sentence undergone by the appellant.
GANGULY, J. Leave granted.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
The special leave petition preferred by the appellant in this Court against the said judgment of the High Court came to be dismissed on 20th July, 2010.
