STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the State of Haryana is challenging the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh rendered in Crl. Misc. No. 2176-M/2000 dated 26-4-2001.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that while the respondent was serving a sentence of 7 years RI for having committed an offence of rape punishable under S. 376 IPC, the Government of Haryana, on the eve of the Independence Day, issued a notification dated 14-8-1995 in exercise of its power vested under S. 432 of the Code, granting remission of prison sentence to all convicts except those excluded in the said notification. The said notification excluded such convicts who had been convicted for the offences of rape, dowry death, abduction and murder of a child below 14 years, unnatural offences, robbery, persons sentenced under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), TADA, the Foreigners Act, Passport Act, the persons detained under the detention laws, the persons sentenced under Ss. 2 and 3 of the Criminal Laws Amendment Act, the persons convicted under Ss. 121 and 130 of the IPC, and the convicts found guilty of violation of Jail Manual.

(3.) Because of the above exclusion of certain offences from the benefit of remission under the notification, the respondent became ineligible for such remission, therefore, he questioned the classification of offences for the purpose of denying remission in a petition filed before the High Court alleging that the said classification amounts to discrimination, thus, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The High Court accepting the said argument and following an earlier judgment of the same Court made in Crl. Misc. No. 21746-M of 1998 Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana - came to the conclusion that it is not open to the State government while granting general remission to carve out special exceptions in cases which, according to it, could be termed as heinous offences and deny the benefit of remission to such class of convicts, therefore, while allowing the petition, it directed the State Government to grant the benefit of remission to the respondent also.