Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision: 26.08.2013 vs State Of Punjab Etc on 26 August, 2013
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Kaur Gurpreet
2013.08.31 11:50
Crl. Misc. No.M-8894 of 2013 1
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-8894 of 2013
Date of Decision: 26.08.2013
Shankar Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab etc. ....Respondents
BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. S.K.Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, D.A.G., Punjab
for the respondent-State.
*****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for issuance of direction to the respondents to release the petitioner prematurely as per Government Policy/Instructions dated 08.07.1991 and to quash the order dated 31.01.2013, vide which, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected which is contrary to the provisions of the policy.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already undergone more than 13 years 3 months of actual sentence and with remissions more than 21 years. As per policy/instructions dated 08.07.1991, the petitioner is entitled to be released after undergoing 12 years of actual sentence and with remissions18 years but still the case of the petitioner has been declined.
Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment of this Court in case Jatinder Kumar @ Bawa vs State of Punjab and others passed in Criminal Misc. No.M-30215 of 2012, decided on 02.08.2013, wherein, the Kaur Gurpreet 2013.08.31 11:50 Crl. Misc. No.M-8894 of 2013 2 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case for premature release of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks. It was also ordered that in case, the case for premature release of the petitioner is not decided by the respondents within a period of four weeks, he shall be released on parole on his furnishing personal bond and a surety bond to the satisfaction of District Magistrate. The petitioner, in that case, was also directed to give an undertaking that he will not leave the Country without prior permission of the Court and will keep peace and shall not indulge in any nefarious activity whilst on parole.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the instructions dated 08.07.1991. As per said instructions, the premature release case of the convict can be considered if he/she is convicted for henious crimes after completing 12 years of actual imprisonment and 18 years with remission. The following cases can be considered for premature release of the convict :-
(Period of years) A B C D E For convicts whose death Convicts who have been Convicts who have been Other life convicts imprisoned Other life convicts sentence has been committed to imprisoned for life for offences imprisoned for life for offences for life for offences for which life imprisonment. for which death is a for death is a penalty but the death penalty is nota punishment and have crimes are not considered punishment and have committed heinous crime heinous committed heinous crimes Actual - Imprisonment Actual - Imprisonment Actual - Imprisonment Actual - Imprisonment Actual - Imprisonment imprisonment with remission imprisonment with remission imprisonment with remission imprisonment with remission imprisonment with remission 14 - 20 12 - 18 10 - 14 10 - 14 8 - 14 The case of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that it is a heinous crime. Nowhere, it has been stated that the case of the petitioner does not fall in the category as mentioned in the policy. As per instructions dated 08.07.1991, the petitioner is to complete actual imprisonment of 12 years and 18 years with remission. As per case of the petitioner, he has completed 13 years of actual custody. As per said instructions, the accused who is convicted for life imprisonment for offence where death is penalty and the crime is considered to be heinous, then the Kaur Gurpreet 2013.08.31 11:50 Crl. Misc. No.M-8894 of 2013 3 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh case of the petitioner should be sent on completion of actual imprisonment of 12 years and with remission 18 years.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in a case State of Haryana vs Jagdish 2010(4) SCC 216 has held that for the grant of remissions, the life convict would be governed by the policy of remission of Government prevailing on the date the judgment of conviction and not by the policy which existed on the date of consideration of his premature release. The relevant observation is made in para 43 of the judgment, which is as under :-
"43. 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, cannot be taken away by the policy dated 13.08.2008. This is evident from a bare perusal of the recitals contained in the policies prior to the 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 the case of the respondent was to be considered on the strength of the policy that was existing on the date of his conviction. 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 pre-mature 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 and for that purpose, in our opinion, it should relate to a policy which, in the instant case, was in favour of the respondent. In case a liberal policy prevails on the date of consideration of the case of a "lifer" for pre-Kaur Gurpreet 2013.08.31 11:50 Crl. Misc. No.M-8894 of 2013 4 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
mature release, he should be given benefit thereof."
In view of the facts as mentioned above as well as the settled law position, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for premature release within a period of four weeks. However, in case, the case for premature release of the petitioner is not decided by the respondents within a period of four weeks, he shall be released on parole on his furnishing personal bond and a surety bond to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Ludhiana. The petitioner is also directed to give an undertaking that he will not leave the Country without prior permission of the Court and will keep peace and shall not indulge in any nefarious activity whilst on parole. After receipt of order from the State Government, Superintendent, District Jail, Ludhiana is directed to inform the petitioner accordingly.
The petition is disposed of with the above said directions.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 26.08.2013 JUDGE gurpreet