IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 462 of 2010 Between: Ambati Pedda Narapa Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of AP rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.No.462 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the life convicts viz., P.Dana Rao (CT 8200) (A5), A.Venkateswarlu (CT 8211) (A.18) and A.Chinnappa Reddy (CT 8215) (A.22), who are detained in Central Prison, Rajahmundry and B.Singa Reddy (CT 581) (A.19), B.Peddi Reddy (CT 763) (A.17), Y.Peddi Reddy (CT 762) (A.3) and M.Israil (CT 764) (A.25), who are detained in Central Prison, Nellore, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.338 Home (Prisons. C) Department dated 24.07.2009, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently sought for a direction to the respondents to forthwith release the said convicts. 2. The brief facts of the case are that all the accused A-1 to A- 30 and the deceased D-1 to D-7 are the residents of Renangivaripalem village. With regard to some political and civil disputes between the accused and the deceased, there was a rivalry, and due to which, some criminal cases were also filed against the deceased D-2 and D-7 and since then, the contacts between both the parties got strained. Later, all the accused formed into an unlawful assembly and hatched a plan to kill all the deceased D-1 to D-7, and on 11-06-1996, in prosecution of their common object to do away the lives of the deceased, they killed deceased D-1 to D-7 and the police filed a case against the accused in Sessions Case No.172 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole. The trial Court, vide its judgment dated 06-11-2009, while acquitting the accused A-4, A-8 and A-30 of all the charges, as many as 30 charges levelled against them, convicted A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-7 and A-9 to A-29 for the offences punishable under various Sections and accordingly, they were sentenced to the life imprisonment. Assailing the judgment of the trial Court, the accused A-2, A-3, A-5 to A-7, A-9, A-10, A-12 to A-18 and A- 21 to A-29 preferred Crl.A.No.1919 of 1999 and A-1, A-19 and A-20 preferred Crl.A.No.145 of 2000 on the file of this Court. A-11 died during pendency of the trial. This Court by its common judgment dated 25-09- 2001, while allowing both the appeals partly, convicted all the accused. The judgment of this Court has become final and since then they are in jail. While so, the 1st respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh issued an order vide G.O.Ms. No.338 Home (Prisons. C) Department dated 24.07.2009, for pre-mature release of certain categories of prisoners convicted for life imprisonment on the occasion of Independence Day, 2009, by granting remission of the un-expired residue of sentence as on 15.08.2009. On coming to know of the said fact, immediately, the wives of the accused herein, arrayed as A-3, A-5, A-17 to A-19, A-22 and A-25 in S.C.No.172 of 1997, submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent- Director General and Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Hyderabad, on 24-07-2009 stating that all the accused herein have already served sentence of imprisonment for more than 10 years excluding remissions and therefore, the accused herein are entitled for the remission as per the guidelines, but their names were not included in the list of convicts to be released under the said G.O. and requested him to include the names of their husbands for pre-mature release. The 2nd respondent by his letter dated 17-08-2009 informed them that the accused would be covered under sub para (iv) of Para 4 of the G.O., which postulates that prisoners convicted of murder of public servants on duty are not eligible for release, and as they are depending on the finding recorded in the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court in Crl.A.Nos.1919 of 1999 and 145 of 2000, that “D-2 was elected as Sarpanch of the village”, the names of the accused were deleted from the list submitted to the Government for grant of special remission to the life convicted prisoners. Immediately, they filed Crl.A.M.P.No.208 of 2009 in Crl.A.Nos.1919 of 1999 and 145 of 2000, on the file of this Court to clarify that D-2 was never elected as Sarpanch. This Court by order dated 07-09-2009, clarified the issue and accordingly in its judgment, deleted the sentence; “D-2 was elected as Sarpanch 7 or 8 years prior to his death for first time. He was elected as Sarpanch for 2nd time about 5 to 6 months prior to his death”, and substituted the sentence; “D-2 was never elected as Sarpanch of Renangivaram village”. After communication of the modified order passed by this Court, the wives of the accused submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent on 14-09-2009 bringing the clarification to his notice and requested him to include the names of the accused in the list for pre- mature release. But as no action was taken by the 2nd respondent, they approached this Court and filed W.P.No.21272 of 2009 and this Court by order dated 26-10-2009, directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the accused, forthwith, because obviously their cases have been discriminated on the mistaken identity of a fact. But even after lapse of 3 ½ months, the respondents have not considered the case of the accused and still they are in jail. Hence, the petitioner, who is brother-in-law of A-17, approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home and perused the record. 4. By the judgment of this Court, the accused herein were found guilty, and were convicted and sentenced as follows: A-3 is responsible for causing the death of D-4 and therefore he is convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. A-5 is responsible for causing the death of D-5 and therefore he is convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. A-17 and A-19 are responsible for causing the death of D-6 and therefore they are convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. A-18 is responsible for causing the death of D-7 and therefore he is convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 302 149 IPC. A-22 and A-25 are responsible for causing the death of D-3 and therefore they are convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by the date of filing their representation i.e., 24-07-2009, all the accused herein have already served sentence of imprisonment for more than 10 years excluding remissions and therefore, the accused herein are entitled for the remission as per the guidelines, prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.338, dated 24-07-2007. Hence, the accused herein are entitled for the benefit of the said G.O. 6. By G.O.Ms.No.338, dated 24.07.2009, the Government decided to grant remission of sentence to certain categories of convicts, on the occasion of Independence Day, 2009, who have been convicted for an offence or offences against laws relating to matters to which the executive power of the State extends and prescribed some guidelines for getting the benefit of the said G.O. The relevant guidelines, for the purpose of deciding the present case, as mentioned in clause (d) of Para-3 and clause (iv) of Para-4 of the said G.O.Ms.No.338, reads as under: “3. The Government hereby issued the following guidelines giving one time exemption to the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.17, dated 17-01-2003, to consider the cases of following categories of prisoners in the State, who have been convicted by Civil Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction. a)………….. b)………….. c)………….. d) All the convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life including those governed by Section 433-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) and who have undergone an actual sentence of 7 years and total sentence of 10 years including remission as on 15-08-2009 and; 4. The remission of sentence in para (3) above shall also apply to prisoners, who have been convicted by Courts situated within the State of Andhra Pradesh and are undergoing sentence in other States, but shall not apply to the following categories of prisoners, namely; i)…………. ii)…………. iii)………… iv) Prisoners convicted of murder of Public Servants on duty. v) to x)…………….” From the above guidelines, it is clear that a life convict should have completed an actual sentence of 7 years and total sentence of 10 years including remission. 7. It is not in dispute that all the accused herein had undergone an actual sentence of 7 years and total sentence of 10 years including remission as on 15.08.2009 as per the guidelines prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.338, dated 24-07-2007. If the same is accepted, they are entitled to have special remission and consequent release. But, the 1st respondent refused to grant remission to the accused herein on the ground that the finding recorded by this Court is shown that D-2 was elected as Sarpanch of the village. But, however, as seen from the impugned judgment, it is clear that the accused herein are caused the death of D-3 to D-7 and this Court also recorded a finding with regard to the involvement of the accused herein for the commission of offence as stated supra that they are all responsible for the death of D-3 to D-7 only, but not D-2. However, this Court also clarified vide order dated 06-10-2009 in W.P.No.21272 of 2009 that D-2 is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 IPC. Hence, D-2 cannot be termed as a public servant. Therefore, on this ground alone, the 2nd respondent ought not to have deleted the names of the accused from the list submitted to the Government for grant of special remission. 8. So far as period of detention undergone by the accused is concerned, after full trial, the accused were convicted and sentenced as stated supra. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the accused herein have completed sentence of imprisonment more than the actual sentence of 7 years and including remand period and remission, they completed total sentence of 10 years of imprisonment. If that alone is the criteria, automatically they are entitled to the benefits of the said G.O.Ms.No.338, dated 24-07-2009. 9. From the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the respondent-authorities have not come to the correct conclusion and erroneously refused to grant remission to the accused herein. Accordingly, the accused herein are entitled to the benefit as provided for in G.O.Ms.No.338 dated 24.07.2009. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed at the stage of admission and the respondents are hereby directed to release the life convicts viz., P.Dana Rao (CT 8200), A.Venkateswarlu (CT 8211) and A.Chinnappa Reddy (CT 8215), detained in Central Prison, Rajahmundry and B.Singa Reddy (CT 581), B.Peddi Reddy (CT 763), Y.Peddi Reddy (CT 762) and M.Israil (CT 764), detained in Central Prison, Nellore, forthwith, if their presence is no more required in connection with any other crime or case. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ 28th January 2010 KVR