RAJENDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 215/1988, Om Shanker vs. State of M. P. and another, which involves the similar questions of law for consideration of this Court.

(2.) THE petitioners in both writ petitions, are life convicts undergoing sentences in jail in accordance with law. Petitioners in this writ petition have been held guilty of offences under sections 302, 149 and 120-B, Indian Penal code, by the Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 66/1980. It appears that they had filed a writ petition (M. P. No. 390 of 1985) complaining that they had completed five years in jail and have become entitled to be released under M. P. Prisoner's Release on Probation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The respondent State did not file its return in the aforesaid case. This Court, by its order dated 7-8-1985 decided the petition without the aid of the return of the respondent State Government and directed them to consider Petitioner's release under the aforesaid Act within the period of three months. It appears that in spite of the aforesaid order, the petitioners' case was not considered. Their father, therefore, moved another writ petition (M. P. No. 3878/1988) and prayed for petitioner's release on bail. This court by its order dated 23-4-1986, directed their release on bail. From the present petition it appears that the petitioners were released on bail in compliance, with the order of this Court. In spite of it, the petitioners' case either under the Act or under Rule 359 of the Jail Manual was not considered. This has led them to file the present petition claiming release under Rule 358 or 359 (9) of the Jail Manual. The respondents/state has filed its return and submitted that in view of section 433-A of the Code of Criminal procedure as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Maru Ram vs. Union of India, air 1980 SC 2147, the petitioners cannot be released under the aforesaid provision before they have completed fourteen years of actual imprisonment.

(3.) IN the other writ petition, petitioner Om Shanker has been convicted for offences under sections 302, 147, 148 and 149, Indian Penal Code and 25/27 of the arms Act, by the judgment dated 17-5-1980, passed by the Sessions Judge, Satna in S. T. No. 69 of 1979. From the petition, it appears that he has completed one year eight months and 27 days as under-trial prisoner and seven years six months and twenty days as actual sentence. He claims that, he has completed more than ten years including remissions and has become entitled to be considered for release under Rule 358 or 359 of the Jail Manual. The respondent/state admits that he has completed more than ten years of jail sentence which included remissions also. They, however, submit that in view of the section 433-A, criminal Procedure Code, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Mam Ram's case, he is not entitled to be released.