Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sobaran Singh @ Siromani Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 6 November, 2017
1WP No. 3895/2016
(Sobaran Singh @ Siromani Singh Vs State of M.P. & others)
09/11/2017
Shri Rajmani Bansal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Singhal, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents/State.
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has not assailed any specific order but is aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondents whereby inspite of the fact that petitioner has already undergone sentence which is required for the purpose of life imprisonment as per the policy promulgated by the State Government dated 16/12/2008, the petitioner is not being released on the ground that his case is covered under the subsequent policy dated 10/01/2012.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that co-accused of this case has already been released in view of the earlier policy i.e. 16/12/2008. Discriminatory approach is being adopted by the State Government in the case of the petitioner which is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that petitioner is serving sentence passed in Session Trial No. 42/1990 by the learned Sessions Judge, Datia (M.P.) vide its judgment dated 01/10/1994 for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 and 307 of IPC. The said judgment was subject matter of challenge before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 210/1994 which was finally decided on 09/03/2004 and the conviction was upheld.
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that 2WP No. 3895/2016 (Sobaran Singh @ Siromani Singh Vs State of M.P. & others) he is also entitled for release as per the policy dated 16/12/2008 which was applicable and was in force at the time of conviction and not in accordance with the policy dated 10/01/2012. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (State of Haryana & others Vs Jagdish) 2010 (4) Supreme Court Cases 216 in which following question was framed :-
"The question that has been posed before us is as to whether the policy which makes a provision for remission of sentence should be that which was existing on the date of the conviction of the accused or should it be the policy that exists on the consideration of his case for premature release by the appropriate authority ?"
The Apex Court held as under :-
"The power exercised under Article 161 of the Constitution is obviously a mandate of the Constitution and, therefore, the policy dated 13/08/2008 can not override the policy dated 04/02/1993.
The right of the respondent prisoner, therefore, to get his case considered at par with such of his inmates, who were entitled to the benefit of the said policy, can not be taken away by the policy dated 13/08/2008. This is evident from bare perusal of the recitals contained in the policies prior to year 2008, which are referable to Article 161 of the Constitution. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, was absolutely justified in arriving at the conclusion that case of the respondent was to be considered on the strength of the policy that was existing on the date of his conviction".
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on 3WP No. 3895/2016 (Sobaran Singh @ Siromani Singh Vs State of M.P. & others) the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No. 7283/2016 (Tikaram Vs State of M.P & others) in which it has been held that the policy on the date of conviction would be applicable.
On the other hand, reply has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted that policy prevailing would be applicable on the date of consideration for release on remission and not the policy in force on the date of conviction. It is further submitted that the petitioner without making any representation to the respondents has approached this Court directly for seeking redressal of his grievance, as such petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Since the respondents authorities have not considered case of the petitioner for release on remission, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :-
1. The petitioner shall file a detailed representation before the competent authority seeking release on remission within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
2. In case, the petitioner files a representation, the competent authority/ respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law and also keeping in view the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others (Supra) and Tikaram (Supra), pass a reasoned and speaking order.
3. The said exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation.4WP No. 3895/2016
(Sobaran Singh @ Siromani Singh Vs State of M.P. & others)
4. The respondents shall also take into consideration the fact that co-accused in this case have already been released taking into consideration the policy dated 16/12/2008.
This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The writ petition stands disposed of.
(S.A.Dharmadhikari) JUDGE Prachi