MUKESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal under Section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Nyaya Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed by the appellant aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4-11-2011 passed in W.P. No. 6209/2011. The appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 381 of the IPC in ST. No. 529/99 and has been sentenced for life imprisonment on 22-5-2002. On 5-9-2007. the appellant had moved an application for releasing him on probation under the provisions of M.P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954 (for short "the Act") and the Rules framed thereunder. The application was forwarded to the District Magistrate on 22-9-2007, and thereafter, to the General Superintendent of Jail for placing before the Probation Board. Meanwhile, the amendment was made in Rule 4 of the M.P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1964 (for short "the Rules") and certain conditions were imposed for life convicts under Section 302. Since the appellant did not fulfill those conditions, therefore, the headquarter (jails), Bhopal had rejected the appellant's case for release on probation, vide communication dated 3-5-2008. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant had filed the writ petition, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 4-11-2011, taking the view that in view of the amendment in the Rules, the appellant is not entitled for consideration of his case for release on probation.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant had been convicted on 22-5-2002, therefore, the provisions which were prevailing on the date of his conviction will be applicable and any subsequent amendment will not take away his right to be released on probation. She submits that the application filed by the appellant needs consideration under the unamended provisions. In support of her contention, she has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Jagdish, 2010 4 SCC 216. in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhup Singh and others, 2009 1 JT 535, in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Mahendra Singh and others, 2008 CrLJ 444, in the matter of Maru Ram Vs. Union of India, 1980 AIR(SC) 2147 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Pradeep Dantre Vs. State of M.P. and another, 2010 3 MPHT 399 W.A. No. 214/2010, decided on 4-5-2010.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned action and submitted that since the relevant Rule itself has been amended, therefore, the amended Rule, which was existing on the date of consideration of the application will apply and the appellant's case has rightly been rejected since he does not fulfill the requirement of the amended Rule.