New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Andhra Pradesh Government to produce the entire original records pertaining to the grant of pardon to a Congress leader convicted to 10 years of imprisonment in a murder case involving TDP workers.

A Bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice S.H. Kapadia gave this direction on a petition filed by Epuru Sudhakar and another alleging that Gowru Venkata Reddy was granted remission of sentence by the State Government after he had served a jail term of only three years out of the total sentence of 10 years.

Pertinent questions

Since important questions of law relating to the parameters, scope and extent of the powers of the State Government and the Governor in granting remission are involved, the Bench appointed senior counsel and former Attorney-General Soli J. Sorabjee as amicus curiae to assist the court in this case.

The Bench asked Kurnool district Collector and the Superintendent of Police to submit reports on the issue and adjourned the matter to February 6.

According to the petitioners, Venkata Reddy, who was a member of the Pradesh Congress Committee, was involved in the murder of Epuru Chinna Ramasubbaiah in October 1995 for allegedly supporting the TDP candidate who won the Nandikotkur Assembly seat.

The petitioners, sons of the victim, alleged that Venkata Reddy enlarged on parole several times in violation of the rules and on false averments.

In August this year, the Governor remitted the remaining sentence of seven years.

They pointed out that the report for enabling pardon by the Governor was sent by the Superintendent of Central Prison in Rajamundry though the convict was undergoing the sentence in Central Prison at Cherlapally, near Hyderabad.

In its rejoinder, the State Government said that the petitioners misled the court by alleging that remission was granted after a three-year jail term as the accused person was actually in jail for five years, two months and five days.

`Dismiss the petition'

There was no violation of any constitutional provisions or any law and the Governor's power under Article 161 of the Constitution was well defined.

It said that the Governor's action was amenable to judicial review only on certain limited grounds.

The allegations of favouritism and hastiness in securing pardon were unfounded, it said and sought dismissal of the petition.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail