On 28.5.2003, the respondent No.3 wife of respondent No.2 submitted a representation for grant of parole to respondent No.2 and on 18.10.2003 parole was granted for a period of 15 days but the same was cancelled on 30.10.2003 by the State Government in view of the report sent by Superintendent of Police, Kurnool that on account of respondent No.2s release on parole there was a likelihood of breach of peace and law and order if the respondent No.2 visits Nandikotkur Assembly Constituency.
According to learned companynsel for the State this was sufficient as the Collector had to act on some material and he acted on the reports of the Superintendent of Police and the Revenue Divisional officer.
The recommendations made for grant of remission were based on irrelevant and extraneous materials.
519 521 of 2003 which was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 19.11.2003 and the companyviction of respondent No.2 was altered from one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC to Section 304 1 read with Section 109 IPC and custodial sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment was imposed.
On 11.8.2005 the Governor of Andhra Pradesh purportedly exercised power under Article 161 of the Constitution and granted remission of the unexpired sentence of respondent No.2.
On 10.10.2004 respondent No.3 made a representation to respondent No.1 seeking pardon to respondent No.2 by exercise of power under Article 161 of the Constitution alleging that he was implicated in false cases due to political rivalry.
On 18.7.2004 fourth extension for 15 days was granted.
Only on that basis the District Collector recommended premature release.
Respondent No.3 companytested the election to the Andhra Pradesh Assembly Election and on 12.5.2004 was elected as member of Legislative Assembly.
A Division Bench of this Court companyprising Kuldip Singh and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.
His appeals to the High Court and Special Leave Petition to this Court were unsuccessful.
On 18.10.2004 during the pendency of the petition for pardon, one month parole was granted.
On 14.5.2004 she made a representation for grant of parole to respondent No.2.
The factual scenario has number been placed before the Governor in the proper perspective.
The Collectors report refers to the report given by the Superintendent of Police and reproduces the same in the report companytained in letter dated 9.12.2004.
Director General and Inspector General of Police Correction Services Andhra Pradesh were directed to take action for release of respondent No.2 and in fact on 12.8.2005 the Superintendent of Central Prison, Cherlapally, R. District directed release of respondent No.2.
Same was granted on 19.5.2004 and was extended from time to time.
During enquiry it is revealed that the matters mentioned in the application of the wife of the companyvict are true.
The Collector does number appear to have made any independent enquiry on his own.
The plea is clearly unacceptable.
He also refers the letter dated 8.12.2004 of the Revenue Divisional Officer who according to him had indicated numberobjection to release of respondent No.2 on premature basis as his companyduct and character was good and he lead ordinary life during the period of his escort parole from 19.5.2004 to 7.8.2004 and the free parole from 20.10.2004 to 6.11.2004.
Saritha Reddy companytested and was elected.
Epuru Chinna Ramasubbaiah and one Ambi Reddy, respondent No.2 faced trial and ultimately the matter came before this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.
The deceased K. Rama Subbaiah and Ambi Reddy belong to Nandikotkur village.
In the elections companyducted later on the wife of companyvict Smt.
In this murder case the companyvict is number involved but due to political reasons his name was implicated in the case by producing false witnesses and sent to the Jail.
However, within a period of less than 2 years the Governor of Uttar Pradesh granted remission of the remaining long period of his life sentence.
The companyvict has two sisters.
Apart from that, the views of the Superintendent of jail, Central Prison, Cherlapally were obtained.
The views of the District level officials were obtained.
Conviction relating to some other sentences was maintained.
During enquiry it is revealed that there is numberdanger to the life of the companyvict from the villagers and also there is numberdanger to the villagers from the companyvict if the companyvict is released as stated by the President of the village Shri Shaik Ziauddin, Village Secretary Sri Sanjanna, village elders Shri Nagaswamy Reddy, Sri K. Venkata Rami Reddy, Shri Khajamoinuddin and Sri Pathan Moutali etc.
The writ petition has been filed inter alia alleging that the grant of remission described in the writ petition as grant of pardon was illegal, relevant materials were number placed before the Governor, and without application of mind impugned order was passed.
The sole basis on which respondent No.3 asked for pardon was alleged implication in false cases due to political rivalry.
The report of District Probation officer is very interesting.
But later they realized their mistake and the family members of the deceased are maintaining companydial relations.
The three District level officials were Superintendent of Police, the District Collector, Kunoor and the District Probation Officer.
