IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 9401 of 2007(T) ------------------------- CC.621/1990 of J.M.F.C.-II,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------- G.BALACHANDRAN, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, AGED 52 YEARS, G.D.HOUSE, PUTHEN CHANTHAL, VARKKALA. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.P.VISWANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. HOME SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. C.S.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, DEVIKRIPA, MYTHRI NAGAR, B17, W.P. (C) No. 9401 of 2007 -:2:- VALIAYAVILA, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. J.ABDUL KALAM, HEAD CONSTABLE, VATTAPPARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. E.SUBIR KUNJU, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHUTHENGU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) REP. BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R8 SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM , SRI. ANEESH CHIDAMBARAN FOR R6& R7 SRI.ANEESH CHIDAMBARAN FOR R6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. HRITHWICK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 1617 OF 2007 CRMC NO. 1747 OF 2007 WPC NO. 27098 OF 2007 THE COURT ON 05/08/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P. (C) No. 9401 of 2007 -:3:- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1:, TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25TH MAY 2004 IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 343 OF 1997 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF G.O. RT NO. 04/2005/HOME DATED 01-01- 2005 OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 03-02-2007 FILED BEFORE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 6-11-2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HOME MINISTER EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24-02- 2007 BEFORE THE HOME MINISTER R7 EXTS: R7 (A): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED 12-10- 2006 BY SMT. NEENA TO THE MOME MINISTER OF KERALA R7 (B): PHOTOCOPY OF THE UNNUMBERED SLP FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS. 6 AND 7 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT R7(C): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 46 OF 93, II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CR V. RAMKUMAR, J ....................................................... W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 and Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 and 1747 of 2007 ........................................... Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT W.P. C. 9401 of 2007 is filed by the complainant (G. Balachandran) in C.C. 621 of 1990 on the file of J.F.C.M. II Attingal seeking the following reliefs:- i) To quash Ext.P2 order dated 1-1-2005 as per which the Government in the Home Department granted remission of the sentences of the 6th and 7th respondents herein (Abdul Kalam and E. Subrair Kunju) who were A2 and A3 respectively in C.C. No. 621 of 1990. ii) to direct the 3rd respondent (Director General of Police) to abide by Ext.P1 judgment of this Court in Crl.Appeal 343 of 1997 iii) to direct the eighth respondent (C.B.I.) to conduct an enquiry as to whether any illegal methods were employed in securing Ext.P2 order of remission or to direct the 2nd respondent (Home Secretary) to consider Exts. P4 and P5 representations filed by the petitioner before the Home Minister. W.P. C. 27098/07 is filed by C.S. Ramachandran Nair (R5 in W.P.C. 9401 of 2007 and A1 in C.C. 621/1990) for a direction to the State of Kerala to consider Ext.P6 application W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 &1747 of 2007 -:2:- filed by the petitioner under Sec. 433 Cr.P.C. for commutation of his sentence. (Pending the said Writ Petition, the Government as per Ext.R1 (a) order dated 13-3-2008 rejected his application). Crl.M.C. 1617 of 2007 is filed by Subair Kunju (R7 in W.P.(C) 9401 of 2007 and A3 in C.C. 621/1990) under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the non-bailable warrants of arrest issued against him by J.F.C.M. II (Attingal) ignoring Annexure - A1 (Ext.P2 in W.P.C. 9401 of 2007) order of remission and to direct the Director General of Police not to take any action against the petitioner in execution of the sentence in C.C. 621 of 1990. Crl.M.C. 1747 of 2007 is filed by Abdul Kalam (R6 in W.P.C. 9401/2007 and A2 in C.C. 621/1990) under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. for reliefs similar to those prayed for in Crl.M.C. 1617 of 2007. THE FACTUAL FLASHBACK 2. The events leading to the filing of the above Writ Petitions and Crl. M.Cs are as follows:- W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 &1747 of 2007 -:3:- THE PROECUTION CASE The petitioner in W.P. (C ) 9401 of 2007 is one Balachandran hailing from Puthenchanthai, Varkala. His wife is one Meena belonging to Vamanapuram Village in Nedumangad Taluk. Their marriage was in the year 1982. There was a property dispute between the said Meena and her brother Baiju and her paternal uncle Vidhyadhara Kurup. On a complaint preferred by the said Vidhyadhara Kurup against the said Balachandran and his wife Meena, the husband and wife were summoned to the Venjaramoodu Police Station as per a written notice issued to them by the Sub Inspector of Police, Venjaramoodu. Balachandran and his wife Meena appeared before the Sub Inspector of Police , Venjaramoodu at 9 a.m. on 16-9-1988 as directed in the notice served on them. The Sub Inspector directed them to meet the Circle Inspector . One C.S. Ramachandran Nair (the petitioner in W.P.(C.) 27098 of 2007) was W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 &1747 of 2007 -:4:- the Circle Inspector, Venjaramoodu. In the office of the Circle Inspector, besides Ramachandran Nair, the Circle Inspector of Police, three police Constables by name Abdulkalam (petitioner in Crl.M.C. 1747 of 2007, Subair Kunju (the petitioner in Crl.M.C. 1617 of 2007) and Chandran and Vidhyadhara Kurup the paternal uncle of Meena and Baiju , the brother of Meena were also present . As soon as Balachandran accompanied by his wife Meena (who was seven months pregnant) entered the room of the Circle Inspector, the Circle Inspector (C.S. Ramachandran Nair) caught hold of the lap of Balachandran together with the cloth and slapped him on his cheek and chest asking him whether he would prefer a complaint against him. Seeing this when Meena, the wife of the complainant went to the rescue of her husband, the Circle Inspector kicked her on the stomach with his boots resulting in Meena falling on the floor. Then Abdul Kalam, Subair Kunju and Chandran the police constables wrongfully restrained W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 &1747 of 2007 -:5:- Balachandran and beat him on various parts of his body. The said police constables then caught hold of Meena and snatched away her mangalyasoothra and slapped her on the face. The above atrocities were done in the presence of Vidhyadhara Kurup and Baiju who had lodged the complaint before the Sub Inspector . Hearing the hue and cry of Balachandran and his wife the persons who were waiting outside came rushing into the room . The Circle Inspector along with Vidhyadhara Kurup and Baiju abused Balachandran and his wife in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences in case Meena was not prepared to relinquish her rights over the property in question in favour of Vidhyadhara Kurup and Baiju. A false case was foisted against Balachandran and his wife Meena. Abdul Kalam, the police Constable who had taken Rs. 4,800 from Balachandran subsequently produced only Rs. 1,800/- along with the Mangalyasoothra and other gold ornaments which were taken from Meena. After getting bail W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 &1747 of 2007 -:6:- Meena was got admitted as an inpatient in S.A.T. Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram for treatment for three days . Crl.M.P. No. 7452 of 1988 was a private complaint filed by Balachandran before the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, ( “J.S.C.M” . for short) Nedumangad against 1) C.S. Ramachandran Nair, Circle Inspector of Police, Venjaramoodu (A1) 2) Abdul Kalam, Police Constable, Venjaramood (A2) 3) Subair Kunju, Police Constable,( Writer), Venjaramoodu (A3) 4) A Chandran , Police Constable, Venjaramoodu (A4) 5) Vidhyadhara Kurup, (A5) 6) Baiju (A6) - alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341 and 379 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. A4 Chandran was subsequently deleted from the array of accused. 27-09-1989 : J.S.C.M. Nedumangad dismissed the complaint under Sec.203 Cr.P.C. 23-11-1989 : Crl.R.P. 145/1989 filed by Balachandran before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, challenging the dismissal of his complaint. W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 &1747 of 2007 -:7:- 18-01-1990 : Sessions Court allowed the Crl.R.P. and set aside the trial Court's order. Cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. was taken against A1 to A3 and A5 and A6. After the case went back to J.S.C.M., Nedumangad the case was numbered as C.C. 151 of 1990 08/10/1990 : M.C. (T.P.) No. 725 of 1990 was filed by Balachandran before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking a transfer of the case from the J.S.C.M. Nedumangad 13-11-1990 : Sessions Court allowed M.C. (T.P.) 725 of 1990 and transferred the Case to J.F.C.M. II Attingal where it was taken on file as C.C. 621 of 1990. The trial was conducted by the J.F.C.M. II Attingal. P.Ws 1 to 7 were examined on the side of the complainant, Exts. P1 to P7 were marked . On the side of the defence Exts. D1 to D3 were marked. 03/01/1993 : J.F.C.M. II Attingal pronounced judgment acquitting A5 and A6 (Vidhyadhara Kurup and Baiju) but convicted A1 to A3 ( Circle Inspector Ramachandran Nair and Constables Abdul Kalam and Subair Kunju) of offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment for one month and simple imprisonment for one year respectively. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 09/02/1993 : A1 to A3 filed Crl. Appeal 46 of 1993 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvanantnapuram, challenging the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them. 21-12-1996 : As per Ext.R7 ( c ) judgment in Crl.Appeal 46 of 1993 the Sessions Judge acquitted A1 and A3 W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 &1747 of 2007 -:8:- 21-05-1997 : Balachandran the complainant filed Crl. Appeal 343 of 1997 before the High Court of Kerala under Sec. 378 (4) Cr.P.C. 25-05-2004 : The High Court passed Ext.P1 judgment allowing the appeal filed by Balachandran. The conviction recorded by the trial court under Sec. 323 I.P.C. was sustained. A2 and A3 were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks under Sec. 323 I.P.C. 08/09/2004 : Abdul Kalam (A2) and Subair Kunju (A3) filed separate petitions before the Government of Kerala seeking remission of their sentence under Sec. 432 Cr.P.C. 06/10/2004 On receipt of Ext.P1 judgment the learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants of arrest against A1 to A3 . 13-12-2004 : A1 filed Crl. M.C. 3442 of 2004 before the High Court of Kerala challenging the warrant of arrest issued against him contending that A2 and A3 alone were sentenced to imprisonment by the High Court. 01/01/2005 : The Government issued Ext.P2 G.O. remitting the sentence imposed on A2 and A3 . (This is the order impugned in W.P. (C ) 940 of 2007). 05/09/2005 : The High Court, noticing that the operative portion of Ext.P1 judgment was not in consonance with the conclusion reached in the earlier part of the judgment and that an inadvertent mistake had crept into the judgment, directed the matter to be placed before the learned Judge who passed Ext.P1 judgment. The said direction was complied with by the Registry. W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 &1747 of 2007 -:9:- 31/10/2005 : The learned Judge who passed Ext.P1 judgment held that A1 to A3 shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Sec. 323 each. A1 to A3 filed S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against Ext.P1 judgment as modified. 06/02/2006 : Supreme Court passed Ext.R7 (b) order dismissing the S.L.P. filed by A1 to A3 against Ext.P1 judgment. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners in the S.L.P. had not surrendered . 10/02/2006 : Ramachandran Nair (A1) also filed an application before the State Government for remission of his sentence under Sec. 432 Cr.P.C. 19-03-2007 : Complainant Balachandran filed W.P.C. 9401 of 2007 before the High Court 23-04-2007 : A1 filed W.P.(C ) 13760/2007 before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to J.F.C.M. II Attingal not to execute the sentence imposed on him pending his application for remission before the Government. 08/05/2007 : High Court dismissed W.P. (c ) 13760/07 as misconceived (Ext.P5 judgment in W.P. ( C) 27098/07 ) holding that no such direction could be issued by the High Court and that in view of the proviso to Sec. 432 (5) Cr.P.C. the application of A1 under Section 432 could not have been entertained unless the applicant was in jail. 11/05/2007 : Subair Kunju (A3) filed Crl.M.C. 1617 of 2007 before the High Court. 30-05-2007 : Abdul Kalam (A2) filed Crl.M.C. 1747 of 2007 W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 &1747 of 2007 -:10:- 11/06/2007 : A1 filed another application before the State Government under Sec. 433 Cr.P.C. seeking commutation of his sentence. 11/09/2007 : Ramachandran Nair (A1) filed W.P.(C) 27098/07 before the High Court. 13-03-2008 : Government dismissed A1's application under Sec. 433 Cr.P.C. as per Ext.R1 (a) G.O. after noticing that his application dated 10-2-2006 filed under Sec. 432 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable in the light of the judgment in W.P.C 13760/07. Ext.R1 (a) order has been passed during the pendency of W.P. ( C) 27098/2007 filed by A1. 3. I heard Advocate Sri. K. Raveendran, the learned counsel appearing for Balachandran, Adv. Sri. Abdul Salam, S. the learned counsel appearing for Subair Kunju and Abdul Kalam, Adv. Sri. Mathew B. Kurian the learned counsel appearing for Ramachandran Nair and Adv. Sri. C.S. Hrithwick the learned Government Pleader/ Public Prosecutor. I also perused the Government files leading to Ext.P2 in W.P. ( C) 9401 of 2007 and the connected files. ARGUMENTS OF A1 TO A3 4 . Adv. Sri. Abdul Salam, the learned counsel appearing for Subair Kunju and Abdul Kalam and Advocate Sri. Mathew B. Kurian appearing for Ramachandran Nair made the following submissions before me opposing W.P. (C ) 9401/07 and in W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 &1747 of 2007 -:11:- support of the other three cases:- One of the prayers in W.P. (C ) 9401 /07 filed by Balachandran is for a direction to the 2nd respondent Home Secretary to consider Ext.P4 petition and a direction to the Home Minister to consider Ext.P5 representation both filed by Balachandran. Those representations were dismissed by the Government and Balachandran has not produced those orders. After Balachandran and his wife Meena fell out, Meena had given Ext.R7 (a) statement dated 12-10-2006 before the Home Minister to the effect that it was on account of the continuous harassment by her former husband Balachandran that she was constrained to give evidence against the accused policemen, that she was giving false statement before the Court on account of the compulsion of her husband, that no injury was caused to her or the child in her womb. The Governor has been kind enough to show mercy to Subair Kunju and Abdul Kalam. Balachandran who was attributing malafides and foul play behind the order of remission passed by the Government has not been able to substantiate the said allegation. The power exercised by the Government is a statutory and constitutional power. The right to grant remission is governed by the provisions of Sec. 432 W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 &1747 of 2007 -:12:- Cr.P.C. which vests the said power with the appropriate Governemnt and not in any Court . (Vide para 7 of K. Pandurangan v. S.S. R. Velusamy and another - (2003) 8 SCC 625. Except for the fact that Abdul Kalam and Subair Kunju who were A2 and A3 respectively were roped in by resort to Sec. 34 I.P.C., no specific allegation of torture was made against them. Hence, the benign Government in exercise of its clemency powers was inclined to extend the benefit of remission to A2 and A3. But the very same Government went wrong in not granting commutation to A1 (Ramachandran Nair) who was also similarly placed as A2 and A3. This Court should, therefore, direct the Government to extend the benefit of commutation to A1 and should refuse to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Government under its mercy jurisdiction as against A2 and A3 after evaluating all the relevant circumstances including their family background. JUDICIAL RATIOCINATION 5. I am afraid that I find myself unable to agree with the above submissions made on behalf of A1 to A3. W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 &1747 of 2007 -:13:- THE POLICE ATTROCITIES 6. During the trial before the Magistrate the complainant besides examining himself as P.W.1 also examined his wife Meena as P.W.4 . P.Ws 2 and 3 were the independent occurrence witnesses. P.W. 5 was the doctor who had examined P.W.4 Meena and issued Ext.P6 wound certificate. P.Ws 6 and 7 were the Sub Inspectors of Police, Venjaramoodu Police Station at the time of occurrence and at the time of trial respectively. A1 had clasped at the loin of the complainant (P.W.1) together with his clothes shouting whether he would prefer a complaint against A1 and slapped him on the face and chest. Seeing this when P.W.1's wife Meena (PW4) went to the rescue of her husband, A1 kicked her on the back with his boots and she fell down. She was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. A2 and A3 had beaten up P.W.1. They also snatched the mangalyasootra of P.W.4 and had slapped her on the face. All these brutalities were committed after securing the attendance of P.Ws 1 and 4 in the room of A1, the Circle Inspector. After a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate who had the unique advantage of seeing the witnesses and assessing their demeanour and credibility held in paragraph 22 of the judgment that both the complainant W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 &1747 of 2007 -:14:- and his wife were manhandled by A1 to A3 and that A1 had stamped with his boots the complainant's wife who was seven months pregnant and she had fallen down. The evidence of P.W.4 Meena was fully believed to hold that she was brutally manhandled by A1 to A3 . After referring to the admission by P.W.6 (Sub Inspector) that he had issued Ext.P3 notice to Meena calling upon her to appear before the Police Station, the learned Magistrate observed that the Sub Inspector was acting in utter disregard of the prohibition under Sec. 160 Cr.P.C. against summoning women to the Police Station. A1 to A3 were accordingly found guilty under Sec. 341 and 323 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and sentenced as mentioned earlier. The conviction entered against A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under Sec. 323 I.P.C. was confirmed by the High Court which, however, reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for three months as against one year awarded by the trial Court. THE ILLEGALITIES BEHIND THE REMISSION ORDER 7. It was at a time when the S.L.P. filed by A1 to A3 against Ext.P1 judgment of this Court was pending consideration W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 &1747 of 2007 -:15:- of the Supreme Court that A2 and A3 filed separate petitions before the State Government on 8-9-2004 seeking remission of their sentence under Sec. 432 Cr.P.C. and the Government issued Ext.P2 G.O. dated 1-1-2005 completely remitting the sentence imposed on A2 and A3. It is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court of India on 6-2-2006 dismissed the S.L.P. filed by A1 to A3 on the ground that they had not surrendered to the jail concerned in pursuance of the sentence passed against them. There is no dispute that it was without entering the portels of the prison even for a day that A2 and A3 submitted their applications for remission which was entertained by the Government in flagrant violation of clause (a) of the Proviso to Sec. 432 (5) Cr.P.C. as per which the application for premature release can be filed and entertained only if the applicant is in prison. Ext.P2 order of remission was passed without calling for the opinion of the presiding Judge who confirmed the conviction as provided under sub section (2) of Section 432 Cr.P.C. All that apart, the concerned file was circulated to the Governor without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in blatant violation of the mandate under Article 163 (1) of the Constitution of India as detailed herein below . W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 &1747 of 2007 -:16:- 8. I have perused File No. 52055/B1/2004/Home leading to the issue of G.O. (Rt) No. 04/2005/Home dated 1-1-2005 (Ext.P2). The order of remission was passed mainly relying on the Report of the Dy.S.P., Attingal as endorsed by the Director General of Police, favouring two members of their own tribe. The report of the District Probation Officer or the remarks of the convicting Judge was not obtained. The recommendations of the Jail Advisory Board or the State Prison Review Committee were not obtained before forwarding the file to the Governor. The aforementioned file is seen circulated by the Home Department to the Governor through the Chief Minister (Vide page 22 of the Note File). The points highlighted at paragraphs 22 and 23 at page 21 of the Note File are as follows:- “22. In this connection the following points are also to be considered magnanimously . (a) Police is the most important link in the criminal justice system and have the primary duty of safeguarding human rights. (b) They should have the skill in mediating and settling problems at the Station House itself. (c ) The offence had been committed while they were doing their duty as policemen. W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 &1747 of 2007 -:17:- (d) The Section under which the punishments had been awarded is 323 Indian Penal Code. This Section is applicable for the offence of “causing hurt “ and is compoundable. The person by whom the offence can be compounded is the person to whom the hurt is caused (e) The Court had imposed only a minor punishment but that may cease their service as policemen of the State. (f) Government have the power for remission of the sentence under Sec. 432 Cr.P.C. 23. In these circumstances for orders whether (a) The requests of Sri. E. Subair Kunju and Sri. Abdul Kalam for remission of imprisonment and fine awarded by the Honourable High Court of Kerala in Crl. Appeal 343/1997 may be recommended and forwarded to His Excellency the Governor for granting full pardon to the petitioners.” At page 22 of the Note File the Under Secretary of Home Department who put up the notes, her superior, the Addl. Secretary of Home Department and the Principal Secretary, Home have signed. Below that the then Chief Minister has W.P. C. Nos. 9401 & 27098/07 & Crl.M.C. Nos. 1617 &1747 of 2007 -:18:- signed on 7-12-2004 with the endorsement “para 23 is approved”. The file was then circulated to the Governor who has put his signature on 10-12-2004 after making the following endorsement: “I have considered the recommendations in paragraph 23 and the foregoing notes. In view of the exceptionally deserving circumstances explained, I am inclined to approve the proposal, as a very special case “. The Governor was thus approving the proposal for remission as if it