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 2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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. S.A. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Gopal Prasad, J.)