IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 23628 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- CHINNAMMA FRANCIS AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.LATE FRANCIS KATTOORKUDIYIL HOUSE, KADAVOOR BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR) SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM 695 001 2. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE PRISON REVIEW COMMITTEE, TRIVANDRUM 3. SUPERINTENDENT, VIYYUR CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT , POOJAPPURA CENTRAL JAIL, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM 5. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS, TRIVANDRUM 6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE POTHANIKKAD POLICE STATION, POTHANIKKAD 7. JOY @ PEON JOY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O.VARGHESE, EDAPPATTU PUTHENPURA KADAVOOR KARA, KADAVOOR VILLAGE, NOW IN VIYYUR CENTRAL JAIL, HAVING CONVICT NO.1497 8. DAS,S/O.KUNJAN, AGED BAOUT 48 YEARS PULIMOOTTIL, KADAVOOR VILLAGE NOW IN VIYYUR CENTRAL JAIL, HAVING CONVICT NO.1495 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW SRI.C.A.ANUPAMAN FOR R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 9.3.2000 OF SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM IN SC.NO.208/1998. EXT.P2 COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD 25.2.05 OF THIS COURT IN W.A.NO.2595/2000. EXT.P3 COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R7(a) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ORDER DTD 26.7.04 IN I.A.NO.2015/04 IN W.A.NO.2595/2000 OF THIS COURT. /TRUE COPY/ CL A.K.BASHEER & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.23628 OF 2008-K - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Basheer, J: Petitioner's son was allegedly murdered by a group of assailants some time in December, 1996. Admittedly, respondents 7 and 8 in this writ petition were arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the above murder case. 2. It is on record that respondents 7 and 8 were found guilty, convicted and sentenced under 302 I.P.C to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/= each with a default sentence. It is also beyond controversy that respondents 7 and 8 are undergoing imprisonment in connection with the above case. 3. Apprehension of the petitioner is that respondents 7 and 8 are likely to be given remission before completion of the term of their life sentence and that they are likely to be released by the Government immediately for extraneous reasons. 2 WPC.NO.23628/08 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites our attention to a judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Md. Munna v. Union of India(2005(4) KLT 256). He submits that law is settled by the above decision that “imprisonment for life means that it should be treated as imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convict person's natural life.” 5. Learned counsel submits that respondents 7 and 8 had managed to come out on parole on a previous occasion using their influence. Petitioner has been informed that a move is afoot at the Government level to grant remission to these two convicts contrary to what has been laid down by the Apex Court. We refrain from making any observation in this regard. In our view, so long as the Government has not passed any order in this regard, it may not be necessary for us to express any opinion in the matter. We do not find any reason to assume that the authority concerned will issue any order contrary to the provisions of law or against any judicial precedent. 6. We close the writ petition with liberty to the 3 WPC.NO.23628/08 petitioner to challenge the order, if any, that the Government may pass for grant of remission to respondent Nos. 7 and 8 as apprehended by the petitioner. We make it clear that we have not considered the merit of any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) cl