JALEB SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) U. S. Tripathi, J. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for issuance of direction in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to release them and set them at liberty and for issuance of a writ, order or direction not to detain them further in Jail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 168 of 1979 under Section 302 IPC. P. S. Aznar, district Hamirpur in which they had already been pardoned and released on Republic day of 2000.

(2.) IT is alleged that both the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 168 of 1979 in the year 1981. In pursuance of above conviction and sentence the petitioner No. 1 Jaleb Singh was admitted in Jail on 25-2-1980 and petitioner No. 2 Chetram was admitted in Jail on 23-10-1981. The petitioner Jaleb Singh has served the sentence of 20 years without remission and petitioner No. 2 served the sentence of about 18 years without any remission. Both the petitioners, therefore, served more than 14 years of sentence, which was required under law for purposes of premature release of life convicts. The State Government on 11- 1- 2000 and 25-1-2000 issued orders for premature release of prisoners in the exercise of power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. Since, both the petitioners had served the sentence with remission for more than 25 years and were accordingly released from Jail on 26-1-2000 in view of the above notifications. However, the above notifications were quashed by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5039 of 2000. In pursuance of above decision, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued direction for arresting the petitioners, who were released in view of above notification and petitioners were arrested on 12-10-2002 by the police of P. S. Aznar, district Mahoba and were kept in Mahoba Jail. Thereafter on 21-10-2002 they were admitted in Central Jail, Naini. Some of the persons affected by the above decision filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in which interim order was passed on 7- 12-2001, according to which, those persons who had served more than 14 years of sentence were not required to surrender. The petitioners were not party to the Writ Petition No. 5039 of 2000 and therefore decision in said writ petition was not binding on them and that in Writ Petition No. 667 of 2001, Ayub v. Vasik Ahmad, this Court had justified the similar notification dated 11- 8-2000.

(3.) ALL these points were considered by Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1933 of 2002, Guru Prasad Tewari and others v. State, 3899 of 2002; Chandrika Prasad and another v. State of U. P. [since reported in 2002 (2) JIC 784 (ALL)], 4035 of 2002; Rameshwar and another v. State of U. P. , 4220 of 2002; Binda v. State of U. P. , 4245 of 2002; Rampal v. State of U. P. , decided on 29-8-2002 and it was held that the petitioners were released because the Jail authorities felt satisfied that they came within the purview of Government order and satisfied requirement thereof, namely, that they were more than 60 years of age and had undergone three years of sentence. Since no specific order directing their release had been passed after examining their case on merit, there was no occasion or requirement for issuance any notice to them. That a person, who had been sentenced to imprisonment for life can be released from Jail either by grant of pardon by the appropriate authority under Article 72 or 161 of the Constitution. He can also be released on licence under the U. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938. At the present moment there is no order of pardon in favour of petitioners. Similarly no order for release on licence under the 1938 Act has been passed in their favour. In these circumstances, there is no provision whose sentence of imprisonment for life has become final may claim to remain out side the Jail. That the petitioners were not entitled to remain out side the Jail even after Government orders on the basis of which they had been released from Jail have been quashed by this Court and are no longer in existence. The review petition filed by the State of U. P. (Criminal Misc. Application No. 121989 of 2001) was rejected by a Division Bench on 15-7-2002 and it was observed that after a convicted person has been taken into custody, it is always open to State Government to consider his case and pass appropriate order for his premature release strictly in accordance with law. That in view of authoritative pronouncement by the apex Court it is absolutely clear that imprisonment for life means the imprisonment for the whole life and till the last breath.