DIWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, relates to grant of premature release of the petitioner on the basis of the recent instructions issued by the State of Haryana, vide, Memo No. 36/11/86-JJ(2) dated 28-9-1988 (Annexure-P-1).

(2.) According to the petitioner, after his conviction and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life under S.302 of the Penal Code, vide, order dated 4-5-81 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rohtak, he had already undergone 8 years 6 months and 27 days of actual sentence and same along with undertrial period is 9 years 2 months and 31 days. It was further pleaded that the petitioner had already earned jail remissions for a period of 3 years 3 months and 20 days, whereas, period of remissions granted to him by the Government is to the extent of 2 years and 7 months. Thus, according to the petitioner he had already undergone sentence including remissions for a period of 14 years 5 months and 17 days. It was further pleaded that according to the aforesaid instructions issued by the State Government on 28-9-88, cases for grant of premature release of adult life convicts i.e. above 18 years not convicted for heinous crimes, are, to be considered after completion of 8 years of substantive detention, including, under trial/detention period, provided total period of such detention including remissions is not less than 14 years. It was next pleaded that keeping in view instructions mentioned in para 2(c) of the aforesaid Government Instructions (Annexure-P-1), the case of the petitioner for consideration of his premature release was recommended by the jail authorities on 19-5-89 and was sent to the Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana, on the same day for onward transmission to the State Government for its consideration. The case of the petitioner for grant of premature release was to be decided within two months of its despatch by the 1 ail authorities. Th petitioner learnt that his case has been considered and deferred/rejected by the State, although no such order has order supplied so far to the petitioner. The petitioner through his counsel vide letter dated 12-10-89 copy whereof is Annexure-P-2, requested the State authorities to supply the order. A reminder was also subsequently issued on 23-10-89 to the State, but, to no effect.

(3.) In the return filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, it was pleaded that the case of the petitioner comes under the purview of S.433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and that the petitioner cannot claim his premature release as a matter of right. It was pleaded that the request for grant of premature release of the petitioner was deferred for one year on 26/27-10-89, by the State Government, in view of the facts and circumstances, and, the manner in which heinous nature of crime was committed by him and that he was duly apprised of the decision concerning rejection/deferred for reconsideration after one year.