IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.229 of 2009 Fekan Paswan, son of late Bhonu Paswan, resident of Village Khusrupur, P.S. Khusrupur, Distt.Patna. -------- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary having his office at Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna. 3. The Secretary Department of Law, Bihar, Patna. 4. Dy.Secretary, Home (Police) Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Inspector General of Prisons, Patna, Bihar. 6. The Superintendent of Adarsh Central Jail Beur, Patna. ------ Respondents. ----------- 8. 6.11.2009 Heard Mr. Jay Kumar for the petitioner, Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, learned Standing Counsel No.6, Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha for respondent no.2. This writ petition has been preferred by a convict for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his case for remission of sentence of imprisonment. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. By judgment dated 24.9.1993, passed by the learned 7th Additional Session Judge, Patna, in S.T. No. 133 of 1992 (State Vs. Fekan Paswan), the petitioner was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and further for a term of three years under section 27 of the Arms Act. Both sentences were run concurrently. He preferred appeal in this Court which was registered as Cr. Appeal No. 519 of 1993, which was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 5.8.2000, whereby the conviction and sentences were maintained. It appears that during pendencny of the proceedings, the petitioner had obtained bail by forging bail order leading to two criminal cases at the instance of Central Bureau of Investigation as well as Bihar police. Both were amalgamated and 2 disposed of by a common trial. He was convicted and was sentenced by judgment dated 31.7.2000, passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Patna, in R.C. Case No.74(s) of 1996 ( State Vs. Fekan Paswan & Ors.). The petitioner did not prefer appeal and the judgment has attained finality. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavits. It appears on a perusal of the materials on record that the petitioner’s case for remission was considered by the State Government and was rejected on 24.8.2007. The same was reviewed and again rejected by order dated 15.11.2007. The same was considered for the third time and has been rejected by order dated 2.3.2009 on the following grounds: “mez de jgus ds dkj.k rFkk ,d vU; okn yafcr jgus ds dkj.k ” We do not wish to examine whether or not the first ground relating to age is a valid ground for rejection of the benefit of remission of sentence, because we are of the view that the second ground, namely, pendencny of another trial is a valid and adequate ground to reject the benefit of remission. We do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly rejected. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)