PRAKASH SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall decide W.A. No.875 of 2011, W.A. 903 of 2011, W.A. No. 915 of 2011 and R.P. No. 427 of 2011 in which a common question of law is involved for the consideration of this Court. For the convenience facts are taken from W.A.No. 875 of 2011 (Prakash Singh Thakur vs. State of M.P. and others).

(2.) ALL the appellants/petitioners are suffering sentence for life under Section 302 IPC alongwith some more provisions under the IPC. It is also not in dispute that these persons have not completed actual sentence of 14 years and before completion of the aforesaid period, they have applied for their premature release under the provisions of M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). The sole contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the Rule 4 of M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") have been amended vide notification dated 24.3.2008 while the applicants were convicted prior to it, so the earlier rule as was in statute book prior to 24.3.2008 shall be applicable in the matter of all the appellants and they are entitled to release on probation even without completion of actual sentence of 14 years. Reliance is placed to a Division Bench of this Court in Santosh Kumar Dubey vs. State of M.P. & another (2011 (3) MPLJ 682) and submitted that in view of the judgment in Santosh Kumar, the appellants may be directed to be considered for premature release on probation by the respondents even without completion of 14 years of actual sentence.

(3.) THE aforesaid rule specifically provide that the eligibility of the release shall be after undergoing sentence of 14 years of actual imprisonment without remission. The Division Bench of this Court considering the validity and applicability of the aforesaid provision in Gouri Shankar (supra) held thus :- 21. On a reading of the aforesaid decision, it becomes vivid that the Division Bench ad analyzed the scheme of the Act and the Rules and found that thre was no provision which falls within the mischief of the mandatory rule of 14 years as an essential condition for the release from prison and, therefore, directions were issued in the said case. The said decision was not dealing with the constitutional validity of the Rules. In the cases at hand, the conditions have been prescribed. An exception has been carved out by the provisos added to Rule 4. The submission of the learned Government Advocate is that regard being had to the sweeping criminal activities and the rate of heinous offences, mercenary killings and the path paved by some who have taken the killings to be profession and political murders, the rules have been amended. In this context, we may note with profit how a Division Bench of this Court in W.R No. 1618/2006 had observed the abuse of the provisions. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case has expressed thus :-