1. G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.-These seven leave petitions are directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court, dated 30-4-1978 and arise in. The following circumstances - On his visit t6 the Open Jail, Badin on 13-4-1976, Mr. Katpar, the then Acting Chief Minister of Sind, passed the following order :- "The Superintendent, Open Jail, Badin, has submitted a list of 64 prisoners wherein recommended their premature release on the grounds of having served a large period of imprisonment and having earned remission earlier apart from good conduct.
2. Prisoner Bashir son of Akbar Khan has bilateral cataract. I sprang my both fingers into his eyes suddenly but there was no reaction in his eyes as the man is nearly totally blind. It is no use keeping a blind man in prison. Released. Those who complete 14 years including remission granted today shall also have likewise benefit.
3. Badin (Sd) A. A. KATPAR, 13-6-76. CHIEF MINISTER, SIND Eadst. No. Copy forwarded for information and necessary action, to--
(1) Secretary to Government of Sind, Home Department,. Karachi.
(2) The Inspector-General of Prisons, Sind, Hyderabad.
(3) The Superintendent, Open Jail, Badin. "
4. On the basis of this opinion, the Government of Sind seems to have registered against the Superintendent of the Open Jail, Badin, and others cases under section 202/109, P. P. C. And section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and also ordered the re-arrest of the released prisoners.
5. It is a matter of record that in consequence of the said order, all the said prisoners were re- arrested, and lodged in jail in order to make them serve the balance of their respective sentences.
6. Feeling aggrieved of the said action of the Government, however, the respondents herein (and other prisoners) filed writ petitions in the High Court all of which were heard together and the same were allowed by the impugned judgment. The case of the respondents in the High Court was that the impugned action of the Government was wholly illegal. They argued that under section 401, Cr.
7. P. C. The Government had the plenary power to suspend or remit punishments or sentences in whole or in part and consequently no exception could be taken to the order passed by the Acting Chief Minister for their release from jail, after remitting a part of their sentences. In support of their contention, reliance was placed on their behalf on Articles 129 and 135 of the Constitution.
8. Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Sind, who has argued these petitions before us, had, in the High Court, supported the impugned order of the Government of Sind on a number of grounds. He had contended-
(1) that there was no evidence to show that the Acting Chief Minister had in fact passedany order for the release of the prisoners ;
(2) that Mr. Katpar was not Incharge of the Home Department and so he had no authority to exercise on behalf of the Provincial Govern--ment the power under section 401, Cr. P. C. ;
(3) that Mr. Katpar, as Acting Chief Minister, was not competent to exercise the powers of the Chief Minister ;
(4) that in any event the order passed by him required the approval of the Governor, but no such Approval had been obtained ;
(5) that under section 401, Cr. P. C. The Acting Chief Minister was required to pass an order in respect of each prisoner and not a blanket order which he had actually passed ;
(6) that the order passed by the Acting Chief Minister stipulated the release of prisoners on the condition of their executing bonds of good conduct to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Open Jail, Badin, but no such bonds had been executed by them ; and
(7) that under Articles 129 and 135 of the Constitution the said order of the Acting Chief Minister was required to be authenticated m the name of the Governor. But since it had not been so authenticated it would be invalid.
9. Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Sind, has reiterated the same very- contentions before us. However, by going through the impugned judgment of the High Court, we have not been able to agree with any of his submissions. The High Court seems to have pains in dealing with each one of his contentions and while repelling them had relied on Articles 49, 104, 129, 135, 139, 180 and 260 of the Constitution, the Rules of Business, Government of Sind framed under Article 139 of the Constitution and quite a few judgments including the three well-known judgments of this Court in the case of Shahbaz v. The State (PLD 1956 SC (Pak.) 46), Lt.-Col. G. Bhattaeharia v.
10. The State (PLD 1964 SC 503) and Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah (PLD 1969 SC 407). There is no need to reproduce the reasoning of the High Court however, with which we respectfully agree.
11. We are, therefore, of the view that the order for the release of the respondents passed by Mr.'
12. Katpar as Acting Chief Minister, Sind, under section 401, Cr..P. C. Was unexceptionable, and its recall by the petitioner Government wholly untenable. In this view, the High Court was well within its right to strike; down the impugned order of the petitioner Government by which it had re--arrested the released prisoners and lodged them in jail to make them serve the balance of the unexpired portion of their sentences.
13. These petitions, therefore, fail and are dismissed.