PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this Criminal Misc. Petition filed by Parveen Kumar-petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, he has prayed for the grant of conditional release on licence under Section 2 of Good Conduct Prisoners 'Probational Release Act, 1926 read with Rules of 1927.

(2.) FACTS :Parveen Kumar-petitioner, his father, mother and sister were tried for offence under Sections 498/A, 307 and 406 read with Section 34, IPC registered at PS Civil Lines, Rohtak, vide order dated 9-10-1996, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 498-A, IPC, RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 307, IPC and RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 406, IPC by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. He acquitted his father, mother and sister. He went in appeal, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12-8-1998. Thereafter, he filedSLP to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed in limine. He is presently lying confined in District Jail, Rohtak. At the relevant time i.e. in the year, 1991, when this occurrence took place, he was working as Officer in the Central Bank of India. It is stated that he is innocent but was found guilty, which was his bad luck. After his involvement in this case, he has undergone sentence as under : YearMonthDays i)As an undertrial prisoner from 17-11-91 to 13-1-920126ii)Period spent after conviction from 9-10-96 to 19-10-960010iii)From 29-9-98 to 25-4-20012626iv)Actual sentence undergone2902v)Remission granted by the Govt. as well as Jail Authorities on account of petitioner's good conduct0500 3202

(3.) He has remained on parole for three occasions. During the period, he was on parole, he was not involved in any untoward incident. His conduct has throughout been good. Now, he is on parole. He is undergoing 7 years imprisonment in District Jail, Rohtak, while undergoing sentence, he has maintained good conduct in jail. He has not committed any jail offence. From his conduct in the prison as well as his antecedents, he is likely to abstain from crime and lead useful and industrious life if he is released from prison. His case is fully covered under the Good Conduct Prisoners Probational Release Act, 1926 and the rules made thereunder. This Act received the assent of the Government of Punjab on 21-7-1992 and that of the Governor General on 16-8-1926. It was published in official gazette dated 27-8-1926. This Good Conduct Prisoners Probational Release Act, 1926 was brought into existence to provide for the conditional release from prison of good conduct prisoners in certain cases before the completion of the term of imprisonment to which they had been sentenced. Previous sanction of the Governor General under sub-section (3) of Section 80-A of the Government of India Act had also been obtained before its publication/bringing into force. This Good Conduct Prisoners Probational Release Act, 1926 was sought to remove from jail influences those prisoners whether adolescent or adult, whose antecedents or conduct while under restraint give promise that they will justify the privilege of conditional release with opportunities of earning their own livelihood and of having their families with them. He has prayed for his conditional release on licence under Section 2 of the Good Conduct Prisoners Probational Release Act, 1926 read with Rule 9 of the Good Conduct Prisoners Probational Release Rules, 1927. By virtue of Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966 particularly Section 89 thereof the provisions of the Good Conduct Prisoners Probational Release Act, 1926 and the rules of 1927 have become automatically applicable to State of Haryana as the State of Haryana has not made any modification/alteration/amendment in the said provisions nor the State of Haryana has amended the provisions by a competent legislature or other competent authority. The provisions have thus become applicable to all those convicts who are under-going sentence in Haryana after 1-11-1966. It is stated that the petitioner fulfils the eligibility conditions as mentioned in Rule 9 of the 1927 Rules. A person convicted under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC is fully eligible for the grant of probational release. The benefit of probational release was not extended to him as his case was not forwarded to the competent authorities for the grant of probational release. He filed Criminal Misc. No. 21961-M of 2000, which was listed for motion hearing on 12-7-2000. In the said petition, the State Government filed written statement mentioning therein that the petitioner has committed heinous crime of burning his wife for dowry and that hewas not entitled to be released under the Good Conduct Prisoners Probational Release Act, 1976. The State also took the plea that Section 498-A has not been included in Rule 9 of the Good Conduct Prisoners Probational Release Act, 1926. This section was inserted in the year, 1986. The offence committed under Section 307/406, IPC is much more serious than majority of the offences. The said petition was listed for final hearing on 16-1-2001 and this Court found the petitioner entitled to the consideration of his case. Direction was given to the State of Haryana for considering his case and pass appropriate order within two months of receipt of copy of this order. On 22-3-2001, State of Haryana vide order Annexure P-5 denied the grant of probational release on licence to the petitioner under the Good Conduct Prisoners Probational Release Act, 1926. Order Annexure P-5 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and whimsical and he deserves to be released under the Good Conduct Prisoners Probational Release Act, 1926 on usual terms and conditions. In re : Sunder Lal v. State of Haryana, vide order Annexure P-7 this Court directed State of Haryana to re-consider the representation of Sunder Lal in the light of the observations made thereunder and to pass fresh orders. Sunder Lal was a convict under Sections 498-A/304-B, IPC.