Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pramod Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
W.P. No.15638/2020
(Pramod Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.)
(1)
Gwalior, dated : 07.07.2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Pallav Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Neelesh Singh Tomar, Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief:-
"i. That, the order impugned Annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed and respondent may kindly be directed to re-consider the matter for release.
ii. That, the respondent authority may kindly be directed to transfer petitioner to jail of competent jurisdiction as the conviction order of State of M.P. are already over.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was convicted by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed for the offences punishable with life imprisonment and at present he is undergoing his jail sentence. The petitioner has suffered actual sentence of more than 17 years without any remission. The petitioner was convicted in another case vide judgment dt.24.02.2010 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity) in Sessions Trial No.16/2003, whereby punishment of 7 years imprisonment and three years imprisonment on two counts was HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P. No.15638/2020 (Pramod Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.) (2) awarded. The criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 24.12.2010 was dismissed as having rendered infructuous on account of undergoing the jail sentence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner was found eligible for release by the District Level Committee and the Superintendent of Jail. The case of the petitioner was forwarded for release on 15.08.2020 by Superintendent of Jail to Director General, Jail vide letter dt.14.07.2020. However, the matter was reviewed by the authorities on the ground that the petitioner has been sentenced to life imprisonment in another offence by the Court having competent jurisdiction in the State of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, the proposal to release the petitioner was rejected.
Challenging the order dt.05.08.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the competent authority, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cancellation of proposal to release the petitioner is illegal. He further contended that he has been punished for the offence by the competent Court having jurisdiction in the State of Madhya Pradesh only on one count. According to the circular dated 10.01.2012 (Annexure P/4) only those judgments and convictions are to be taken into consideration, which have been passed by the competent Courts having jurisdiction in the State of Madhya Pradesh and not in other States. In such situation, the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P. No.15638/2020 (Pramod Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.) (3) Clause 1(v)4 of the circular dt.10.01.2012 would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, whereas the respondents have applied Clause 1(v)5 and rejected the claim of the petitioner.
On the other hand learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State submitted that the Clause 1(v)5 of circular dt.10.01.2012 provides that if an accused has been sentenced to life imprisonment for more than one count, then he can be released only after undergoing actual jail sentence of 20 years. It is further submitted that so far as the release of an accused on remission is concerned, it is the subjective satisfaction of the authority. He further submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has been sentenced to life imprisonment on two counts : One in Madhya Pradesh and one in Uttar Pradesh, therefore, unless and until he completes 20 years of imprisonment the benefit of circular dt.10.01.2012 cannot be extended to the petitioner.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
For the purpose of convenience the relevant portion of circular dt.10.01.2012 is reproduced herein below:
e/;izns'k 'kklu tsy foHkkx ea=ky;
oYyHk Hkou] Hkksiky] 462004 vkns'k Hkksiky] 10 tuojh 2012 dzekad ,Q&3&50@2011@rhu@tsy jkT; 'kklu ,rn~ }kjk vij eq[; lfpo ¼x`g½ dh v/;{krk esa xfBr jkT; Lrjh; HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P. No.15638/2020 (Pramod Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.) (4) lfefr ls izkIr vuq'kalkvksa ds vk/kkj ij izfro"kZ 26 tuojh ¼x.kra= fnol½ ,oa 15 vxLr ¼Lora=rk fnol½ ds voljksa ij ,sls cafn;ksa dks tks jkT; ds nkf.Md vf/kdkfjrk okys U;k;ky;ksa }kjk fl) nks"kfl) Bgjk;s x;s gSa bl jkT; dh ;k vU; jkT;ksa dh tsyksa esa ifj:) gS] dks vkxkeh vkns'k rd muds vPNs vkpj.k dh 'krZ ij ltk esa NwV ,oa ifjgkj iznku djus ds fy;s fuEukuqlkj fn'kk&funsZ'k izlkfjr djrk gS%& 1¼v½ vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk ls nf.Mr cafn;ksa dh ltk esa NwV%& 1- vkthou dkjkokl ls n.Mkfn"V ,sls cafn;ksa dks] tks vkthou dkjkokl dh ,d ltk ds lkFk vU; fdlh Hkh vof/k dh ltk ls nf.Mr ugha gks rFkk ftUgksus fopkj.kk/khu dkykof/k ds lfEefyr djrs gq;s 14 o"kZ dk n.Mkns'k ds 20 o"kZ iw.kZ dj ysus ij eqDr fd;k tkosxkA 2- vkthou dkjkokl ls n.Mkfn"V ,sls cafn;ksa dks] tks vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk ds vfrfjDr 5 o"kZ rd dh ltk ls nf.Mr rFkk ftUgksus fopkj.kk/khu dkykof/k dks lfEefyr djrs gq;s 15 o"kZ dk n.Mkns'k Hkqxr fy;k gks rFkk ifjgkj dks lfEefry djrs gq;s n.Mkns'k ds 21 o"kZ iw.kZ dj ysus ij eqDr fd;k tkosxkA 3- vkthou dkjkokl ls n.Mkfn"V ,sls cafn;ksa dks] tks vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk ds vfrfjDr 10 o"kZ rd dh ltk ls nf.Mr gks rFkk ftUgksusa fopkj.kk/khu dkykof/k dks lfEefyr djrs gq;s 16 o"kZ dk n.Mkns'k ds 22 o"kZ iw.kZ dj ysus ij eqDr fd;k tkosxkA 4- vkthou dkjkokl ls n.Mkfn"V ,sls cafn;ksa dks] tks vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk ds vfrfjDr 10 o"kZ ls vf/kd dh ltk ls nf.Mr gksa rFkk ftUgksaus fopkj.kk/khu dkykof/k dks lfEefyr djrs gq;s 17 o"kZ rd dk n.Mkns'k Hkqxr fy;k gks rFkk ifjgkj dks lfEefry djrs gq;s n.Mkns'k ds 23 o"kZ iw.kZ dj ysus ij eqDr fd;k tkosxkA 5- vkthou dkjkokl ls n.Mkfn"V ,sls cafn;ksa dks] tks vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk ds vfrfjDr ,d ;k vf/kd vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk ls nf.Mr gksa rFkk ftUgksaus fopkj.kk/khu dkykof/k dks lfEefyr djrs gq;s 20 o"kZ dk n.Mkns'k Hkqxr fy;k gks rFkk ifjgkj dks lfEefry djrs gq;s n.Mkns'k ds 26 o"kZ iw.kZ dj ysus ij eqDr fd;k tkosxkA ijUrqd%& i. ,sls lHkh canh] ftUgksus tsy ds vanj jgrs gq;s ,d ;k ,d ls vf/kd vijk/k fd;k gks] mles mUgsa dqy ;ksx 5 o"kZ rd dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P. No.15638/2020 (Pramod Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.) (5) x;k gS] ,sls canh 17 o"kZ dk n.Mkns'k fopkj.kk/khu dkykof/k dks lfEefyr djrs gq;s Hkqxr fy;k gks rFkk ifjgkj dks lfEefyr djrs gq;s n.Mkns'k ds 23 o"kZ iw.kZ dj ysus ij eqDr fd;k tk,xkkA ii. ,sls lHkh canh ftUgksaus tsy ds vanj jgrs gq;s ,d ;k ,d ls vf/kd mijk/k dkfjr fd;k gks] mles mUgsa dqy ;ksx 5 o"kZ ls vf/kd dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k gS] ,sls canh 18 o"kZ dk n.Mkns'k fopkj.kk/khu dkykof/k dks lfEefyr djrs gq;s n.Mkns'k ds 24 o"kZ iw.kZ dj ysus ij eqDr fd;k tk,xkA iii. ,sls lHkh canh] ftUgksaus tsy ds vanj jgrs gq;s ,slk vijk/k fd;k gks] ftlesa mUgsa vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k gks] rks ,sls canh dks 25 o"kZ dk n.Mkns'k fopkj.kk/khu dkykof/k dks lfEefyr djrs gq;s Hkqxr ysus ij ifjgkj dks lfEefyr djrs gq;s n.Mkns'k ds 31 o"kZ iw.kZ dj ysus ij eqDr fd;k tk;sxkA Thus, from the aforesaid heading of the circular, it can be seen that this circular is applicable to the convicts, who have been sentenced by the courts of having jurisdiction in the State of Madhya Pradesh only and not by any other courts having competent jurisdiction in other States. Admittedly, the petitioner has been convicted only on one count in the State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, Clause 1(v)5 would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, instead Clause 1(v)4 would be applicable. Earlier the respondents have rightly taken the decision to release the petitioner based on Clause 1(v)4 of the circular dt.10.01.2012. Accordingly, the impugned order dt.05.08.2020 (Annexure P/1) is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with Clause 1(v)4 of the circular dt.10.01.2012. If it is found that the petitioner HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P. No.15638/2020 (Pramod Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.) (6) is eligible for release, then he may not be actually released but he may be handed over to the Uttar Pradesh Police or transferred to jail in the State of Uttar Pradesh having competent jurisdiction for undergoing the remaining sentence for conviction by the competent Court of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
With the aforesaid directions/observation, this petition stands allowed.
(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge Shanu Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2021.07.09 17:29:50 +05'30'