ORDER By the Court.–Taking suo motu cognizance of the ongoing hunger strike by the prisoners in the Central Prison, Ranchi, Hazaribagh, Palamau and other places in the State of Jharkhand, vide order dated 6th February, 2014, we have ordered notices to the (i) Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand; (ii) The Inspector General of Police, Jail, Government of Jharkhand; (iii) The Law Secretary, Government of Jharkhand; and (iv) Principal Probation Officer, Government of Jharkhand. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Additional Advocate General, has taken notice and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter has been listed today i.e. 7.2.2014. 2. We have heard Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of Jharkhand. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the last meeting of the State Sentence Review Board was held on August, 2012 and in the said meeting, 56 cases were considered. The learned Additional Advocate General further stated that the next meeting was scheduled to be held in the month of November, 2013. However, in the meantime, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sangeet and Anr. v. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 452 came and according to learned Additional Advocate General, in view of the observations made in para-61 of the said judgment, "appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of Section 432 Cr PC cannot be suo motu for the simple reason that this sub-section is only an enabling provision. The appropriate Government is enabled to override a judicially pronounced sentence, subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions". Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in view of the judgment rendered in Sangeet's case (supra), the meeting of the State Sentence Review Board, which was scheduled to be held in November, 2012 to consider the case of the prisoners, could not be held and, therefore, no case for remission was considered. It is stated that State Sentence Review Board is comprising of the following persons : (I) The Home Minister as Chairman; (II) Two Members, (i) Law Secretary; and (ii) Home Secretary; (III) Member Secretary-Inspector General of Police (Prison); (IV) The representative of Jharkhand High Court (Mr. Kumar Ganesh Dutt, Principal District Judge); (V) The Director General of Police or his representative; (VI) The Principal Probation Officer, Government of Jharkhand. 3. Kumar Ganesh Dutt, Principal District Judge); (V) The Director General of Police or his representative; (VI) The Principal Probation Officer, Government of Jharkhand. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that total 152 proposals are pending, out of which 106 proposal will be considered by the State Sentence Review Board, meeting of which is scheduled to be held today (7.2.2014). 4. It will be in order that the State Sentence Review Board considers the case of 106 cases in their meeting, scheduled to be held today i.e. 7.2.2014 and complete the same in couple of days and file a status report in this regard within a period of two weeks. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that so far as remaining 46 cases are concerned, reasoned opinion of successor Presiding Officers of convicting Court are required. 6. In so far as those remaining 46 proposal are concerned, we direct the respondents to move the appropriate Court to get the reasoned opinion of Successor Presiding Officers of Convicting Court within a period of two weeks. In paragraph-54 of the judgment rendered in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Jagdish, reported in 2010 (3) JCR 109 (SC) : (2010) 4 SCC 216 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :- "State authority is under an obligation to at least exercise its discretion in relation to an honest expectation perceived by the convict, at the time of his conviction that his case for premature release would be considered after serving the sentence, prescribed in the short-sentencing policy existing on that date. The State has to exercise its power of remission also keeping in view any such benefit to be construed liberally in favour of a convict which may depend upon case to case." 7. As held in Jagdish case, the State authority is under an obligation to at least exercise its discretion in relation to an honest expectation perceived by the convict. In so far as the prisoners who have already completed 14 years in actual custody and/or 20 years with remission, the respondents are directed to collect the details of those prisoners and take steps to get the reasoned information from the appropriate successor Courts which convicted the accused and file a status report of the same, within a period of two weeks. 8. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel, is appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court in this regard. 8. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel, is appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court in this regard. Office is directed to furnish the copies of the proceedings to Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, amicus curiae, as well as JC to Additional Advocate General. Let name of Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, amicus curiae, be appeared in the cause list. 9. Post this matter on 21.2.2014. 10. Issue a copy of this order to the counsel for the parties. Ordered accordingly.