G.R. Luthra, J.
(1) Three petitions (Crl. Writ No. 93/84, Crl. Misc. 775/ 85 and Crl. Misc. (Main) 853/85) are being decided by this order.
(2) All the three petitions were filed by the same petitioner, namely, Vishwa Nath Verma. The petitioner was in Government service and was member of Indian Foreign Service (B). He committed murder of his wife and, thereforee, 'was arrested on 25th December 1976. On 4th August 1979 he Was convicted in respect of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He filed an appeal to the High Court which was dismissed.
(3) The petitioner applied to Delhi Administration for grant of furlough or parole in accordance with the rules framed by the said Administration. Delhi Administration obtained the report of the police which was to the effect that the petitioner was a dangerous and desperate character having killed his wife and that he should not be granted either furlough or parole. On account of the said report, the application of the petitioner was rejected.
(4) Feeling aggrieved the petitioner brought criminal writ petition No. 93/84 for expunging the aforesaid report of the police. Then he filed a criminal Misc. 775/85 for grant of furlough to him. The third petition (Crl. Misc. (M) 853/85) was filed by him for obtaining parole for a period of two months on the ground that his son, who was living abroad, had to come to India for a short period and that he wanted to remain with his son and also talk to him regarding managing of the property.
(5) All the petitions were contested by the State and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(6) Sodhi Teja Singh, the learned counsel for the State, raised an objection that the applications under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code . 'were' not legally maintainable, because inherent powers could not be exercised for grant of parole or furlough. Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code . reads as under :
'482.Saving of inherent powers of High Court--Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or effect the inherent pow.ers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.'
(7) It is contended by the said learned counsel that inherent powers could be exercised for either giving effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, that it was clear that it was with respect to the orders of the court only that inherent powers could be exercised, that the exercise of power of parole or furlough fell within the domain of the Government, in ihe present case Delhi Administration, and that, thereforee, the High Court cannot exercise that power by interfering into the exercise of jurisdiction by the Government. He explained that a person aggrieved from the order of Delhi Administration could come to the High Court but that could be by way of invoking the 'writ jurisdiction' as given under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(8) I, however, do not agree with the learned counsel.' The words 'otherwise to secure the ends of justice' are wide enough to cover a case when according to this Court the exercise of jurisdiction by the Government in respect of grant of parole or furlough is not in accordance with ends of justice. Normally, this court will not like to interfere with the jurisdiction exercised by the Government but in some extreme and deserving cases, in the ends of justice it becomes the duty of the court to interfere.
(9) I also heard the counsel for the parties in respect of effect of Section 433-A Criminal Procedure Code . which reads as under :
'433-A.Restriction on powers of remission or commission in certain cases.-Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under Section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.'
(10) Obviously that provision lays it obligatory that, inter alia, a person convicted of an offence of murder must remain in jail for 14 years which necessarily implies that he cannot be released on parole or furlough. However, in Maru Ramd: others v. Union of Indian others, : 1980CriLJ1440 , it was specifically held that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 433-A Criminal Procedure Code ., parole can be granted. The main judgment was written by Krishna Iyer, J. who gave his conclusion in paragraph 72 at pages 2174 and 2175 of the judgment. The conclusion No. 14 reads as under :
'14.Section 433A does not forbid parole or other release within the 14-year span. So to interpret the Section as to intensify inner tension and intermissions of freedom is to do violence to language and liberty.'
(11) Now I take up the case on merits. The police is against the release of the petitioner and apprehends that if released he may be dangerous to the witnesses who appeared against him and might create law and order problem by way of harming the relations of his wife who was murdered by him. However, in this respect we must not forget that the petitioner had been released a number of times on parole previously also and there is no complaint against his behavior during the time of such releases. thereforee, I am of the view that the petitioner should be given a chance to come out on parole on the special ground that his son has come from abroad and the petitioner wants to meet him and remain with him till his son goes away from India. When arguments were going on, I was told that the son of the petitioner was sitting in the court. A person who was pointed out as son of the petitioner also got up, and told that he has to leave India and go back abroad on October 3, 1985. Hence, in my opinion the petitioner should have parole up to October 4, 1984 and should surrender himself at or before 12 noon of October 4, 1985.
(12) Apart from getting parole, the petitioner is desirous that the report of the police should be expunged. I am, however, not in favor of setting aside the opinion of any department and, thereforee, to that extent I am not agreeable.
(13) I, thereforee, reject the prayer of the petitioner for expunging the remarks of the police against him and, thereforee, dismiss the writ petition No. 93 of 1984. I accept the applications under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code . bearing Nos. Crl. M. 775/85 and Crl. Misc. (Main) 853/85 and grant parole to the petitioner up to 12 noon of 4th October 1985 subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi undertaking to the following effect:
(I)The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on or before 12 noon of October 4, 1985. (ii) The petitioner hail maintain peace and be of good behavior till the time he remains on parole. (iii) The petitioner shall not leave India during the period of parole. (iv) After the lapse of period of 15 days the petitioner must present himself before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and gel, his presence recorded.
(14) The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate must fix a date of 4th October 1985 in respect of this case for enabling the petitioner to surrender before him and in case the petitioner doss not surrender by 12 noon, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall issue immediately non-bailable warrants of arrest so that the petitioner can be arrested and sent to jail. In case the petitioner surrenders in time, he shall be arrested and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall see that he is seat to the jail for serving the rest of the sentence.
(15) A copy of this order shall be sent immediately to the Sessions Judge, Delhi as well as the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi for information and necessary action. Crl. Writ 93/84, Crl. M. 775/85 & Crl. M.(M) 853/85 stand disposed of.