IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR.W.J.C. No.7 of 2011
SURENDRA PRASAD, S/O LATE JADO LAL SAH, R/O VILLAGE
TIKULIA, P.S. CHANPATIYA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN,
BETTIAH .. PETITIONER
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. IINSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON, BIHAR, PATNA
3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,
PATNA
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SHAHID KHUDI RAM BOSE
CENTRAL JAIL, MUZAFFARPUR, BIHAR
.. RESPONDENTS
****
/4/ 28 February Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
2011
and the learned counsel for the State.
Petitioner is a convict, who wants a
direction from this Court to the State authorities to
consider granting him remission in respect of
imprisonment for life awarded for offence under
Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
In paragraph 16 of the writ petition a false
statement has been made that the petitioner has not
moved before this Hon’ble Court earlier in the instant
matter. The writ petition is supported by affidavit
sworn by wife of the petitioner.
2
The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondents no. 3 and 4 discloses the aforesaid
misstatement of a material fact. Copy of an order,
dated 06.11.2009, passed by a Division Bench of this
Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 522 of 2009 has been annexed
as Annexure “A” to support the fact stated in the
counter affidavit that similar claim of the petitioner was
rejected on merits and such a fact has been suppressed
in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner wanted
to show that on merits the earlier Division Bench order
is not in accordance with law subsequently clarified by
the Supreme Court.
However, in view of the fact, noticed
above, we are of the considered view that the attempt
of the petitioner to suppress the material fact while
invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court has to be
deprecated and in view of such conduct the petitioner
has disentitled himself to any relief in the present
proceeding. We are, further, of the considered view
that it is not open for us to sit in appeal over the earlier
Division Bench judgment, contained in Annexure “A”.
3
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition
is dismissed.
We have not taken any action against the
petitioner or his wife because petitioner is already in
jail custody and the wife, in the facts of the case,
deserves to be given benefit of doubt that she might not
have been aware of the law and might be acting under
the dictates of her husband.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
( Gopal Prasad, J.)
S.A.