K. Balagopal Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
civil - grant of cash award - article 226 of constitution of india - reward announced for apprehending notified extremists - policy decision taken by government to maintain law and order cannot be interfered - allegation of murder instead of apprehension to be established by investigation - held, petition questioning public policy dismissed. - i. venkatanarayana, j. 1. the writ petition has been filed by the secretary of the a.p. civil liberties committee for issue of a writ of mandamus seeking for a declaration that the action of respondents 1 and 2 herein in granting cash reward of rs. 10.2 lakhs to the 6th respondent herein as illegal and arbitrary.2. the facts as set out in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petitioner are set out as hereunder:-the petitioner submits that a.p. civil liberties committee is committed to the cause of civil rights and human rights. it appeared in the deccan chronicle news papers dated 13th and 14th april 1998 that the 6th respondent herein has been rewarded with rs. 10.2 lakhs for having killed one mr. vijay @ ramesh who was the district committee secretary of peoples war group, karimnagar. it is further stated that the police ought to have registered a case of murder against the 6th respondent instead of rewarding him with cash award. such awarding of rewards to a person who has committed murder of another person is totally illegal and arbitrary. this manner of granting cash reward to killers of persons alleged to be naxalites will lead to lawlessness. hence the presen writ petition is filed seeking for a declaration that the action of the first and second respondents in granting cash award to the 6th respondent is illegal and arbitrary.3. a detailed counter-affidavit filed by the superintendent of police, karmnagar, who is the 4th respondent herein. it is submitted that the writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be rejected since the present writ petition is based on a news paper report appeared in deccan chronicle dated 13th and 14th april 1998. further, it is the discretion of the government in announcing these rewards in order to maintain law and order and with a view to apprehending notorious criminals including highly dangerous extremists. before announcing the rewards the government will take into consideration the activities and the threat faced by the society from the unlawful activities of extremists. the counter-affidavit sets out the trueand correct facts relating to this writ petition which are set out as hereunder: deceased vijay @ ramesh @ malkapuram bhaskar was the district committee secretary of extremist of peoples war group organization of karminagar district. the 6th respondent jadala nagaraju @ vikam @ mallsham is an aetive member of cpi (ml) peoples war group, associated with manthani dalam who has been associated with underground activities. the 6th respondent and later vijay @ ramesh has been quite hostile to each other and the 6th respondent was critical of the style of functioning by the deceased vijay @ ramesh. both of them have developed enmity with each other. on the intervening night of 11th/12th april 1998 the underground cadre dalam gathered at ramgiri khilla in kamanpoor mandal to discuss the party affairs. an altercation ensued between the 6th respondent and the deceased vijay @ ramesh. suddenly the deceased vijay became annoyed at the attitude of the 6th respondent and picked up an ak-47 and aimed at the 6th respondent. in the meantime, the 6th respondent lost no time in taking a carbine from dommati arjaiah @ nagarju, the central organizer and opened fire at the deceased vijay who died on the spot. the other members of the dalam who saw the firing ran away. the 6th respondent took ak-47 and the carbine and concealed both the weapons in a house belonging to deva ramaswamy of kalwacherla village and reported the matter to sho., kamanpoor police station who recorded the statement of the 6th respondent and registered a case in crime no. 29 of 1998 under section 307 of the indian penal code and section 25 of the indian arms act and section 174 of the criminal procedure code. during the course of investigation, the weapons were recovered at the instance of the 6th respondent. in short, it is the stand of the 4th respondent that the circumstances shown above prima facie prove that the 6th respondent has acted in self-defence leading to the death of the deceased vijay who was holding more lethal weapon than the carbine and hence the question of applying section 302 ipc does not arise. it is further stated that there is no complaint from any body to the police that the 6th respondent has shot ramesh @ vijay with a view to kill him deliberately. it is further submitted that the deceased vijay @ ramesh committed 163 offences of various nature including murder in adilabad district (a list of cases is annexed to the counter). the government has issued g.o. ms. no. 183 gad dated 11-4-1996 by notifying cash reward for the apprehension of the underground extremists of different cadres. the name of the deceased vijay @ ramesh is shown in serial no. 4 showing reward of rs. 3 lakhs. it is submitted that the circumstances stated above prima facie prove mat the 6th respondent has only acted in self-defence to the death of the deceased vijay @ ramesh for holding more lethal weapon than carbine and hence the question of applying section 302 of the indian penal code against the 6th respondent does not arise since the deceased has first aimed his gun to kill the 6th respondent.4. taking into consideration the rival submissions, the only question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the action of respondents 1 and 2 in awarding cash award to the 6th respondent is illegal and arbitrary.5. sri k.g. kannbhiran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 6th respondent is guilty of murder and that he cannot be rewarded cash award. he further contends that such incentive award will lead to lawlessness. learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the division bench judgment of this court reported in k.g. kannabhiran v. chief secretary, 1997 (2) ald 523 (db), and contended that it is incumbent on the part of the 4th respondent to have registered a case under section 302 ipc and investigated into the same for the purpose of ascertaining whether it was a murder or whether the 6th respondent acted in exercise of his right of self-defence. learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on anson's law contact, anson's law ofcontract, 23rd edition edited by a.g. guest, and submits that a person who does an act 'it to ease her conscience, and in hopes of forgiveness hereafter' is not entitled to claim the sum offered. in other words, it is his contention that the 6th respondent has deliberately committed murder with a hope of getting pardon from the state and hence it cannot be constructed as a right of self-defence.6. learned government pleader for home appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submits that the deceased was associated with peoples war group and has committed 163 offences including murders in adilabad district. he has also placed before us a list of crimes pending against the deceased. he reiterated the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent-superintendent of police and submits that there was a dispute between the deceased and the 6th respondent and that on the intervening night of 1l/12th april 1998 the underground dalam gathered at ramagiri khilla in karminagar to discuss about the party affairs and the deceased in a fit of anger took ak-47 to shoot at the 6th respondent and in self-defence the 6th respondent lost no time in taking a carbine from another and opened fire at the deceased vijay @ ramesh which resulted in his death. according to the learned government pleader, the act done by the 6th respondent is in self-defence since he would have died had he not retaliated with a lethal weapon. hence the question of applying 302 ipc against the 6th respondent does not arise.7. at the outset it is to be seen that the writ petition has been filed based on a news paper report appearing in the deccan chronicle dated 13th april 1998. no material or evidence has been placed by the petitioner before this court for the purpose of establishing that the 6th respondent deliberately committed murder of late vijay @ ramesh on the intervening night of llth/12th april 1998. while exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india, this court will not conduct an enquiry into the nature of offence alleged to have been committed by the 6th respondent and it is entirely for the 4th and 5th respondents to conduct investigation in accordance with the criminal procedure code and take appropriate action. it is also to be noted that the petitioner has not challenged g.o. ms. no. 183 gad, dated 11-4-1996 under which cash award has been notified for apprehension of underground extremists of different cadre. it is the responsibility of the state to maintain law and order and that a citizen is entitled to live in peaceful atmosphere. we do not wish to exercise jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution interfering with the policy decision taken by the government to maintain law and order with a view to apprehend notorious criminals including highly dangerous extremists.8. taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any ground to exercise power of judicial review under article 226 of the constitution of india. the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. no order as to costs.