6. On behalf of the 1st respondent, two main contentions are advanced. One is that, Ext. P1 does not indicate that the case was registered under case No.PE 7/1122 (M.E.), which is the case registered with respect to "Punnapra-Vayalar Movement". But it is evident that in Ext. P3 application, the freedom fighter had specifically shown both the numbers of PE 7/1122 and CC 105/1124. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, PE 7/1122 indicates preliminary enquiry number assigned at the time of registration of the case and CC No.105/1124 pertains to the Calender Case charge sheeted before the Magistrate Court, after completion of the investigation. Therefore it is contended that, as long as no material is produced to show that PE No.7/1122 is not related to CC No.105/1124 the reason for rejection on that court is not sustainable. Further contention raised by the 1st respondent is that, even assuming that the person had undergone imprisonment pursuant to a conviction in CC No.105/1124, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the conviction was on the ground that he had participated in "Punnapra-Vayalar struggle" and there is nothing to show that the case was registered on the basis of any such participation. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, Ext. P1 is indicative of the fact that the case was registered for offences punishable under Section 9(1) and Section 5 of Act I of 1122(M.E.). He points out that Act I of 1122 is the Travancore Emergency Powers Act, 1122(M.E.) which deals with provisions for handling situations emerging out of movements against the princely states. He also contended that all other cases registered in connection with "Punnapra-Vayalar Movement" are only under the same provisions. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel also contended that the report of the State Government is only recommendatory in nature and it has no binding force. The Central Government will be always at liberty to reject the recommendations, in case if it is not proved with convincing materials regarding eligibility for grant of pension, is the contention.
