PARAMJIT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARAMJIT , petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 15.1.2002 passed by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Mani Majra, Chandigarh, whereby his case for premature release in terms of the instructions of the State Government dated 8.8.2000 had not been sent to the State Government by respondent No. 2 on the ground that his case would be considered as and when he completes 14 years of actual sentence including the under-trial period provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions is not less than 20 years. Further prayer made in the petition is that direction be given to respondent No. 2 to put up his case for premature release before the State Government, respondent No. 1 for necessary consideration and decision is accordance with law, rules and instructions governing his case.

(2.) NECESSARY facts need to be noticed for adjudication of the present petition. The incident which had taken on 25.12.1985 at 1.30 p.m. in village Kharawar, District Rohtak which led to the registration of the case bearing FIR No. 247 dated 25.12.1985 under Section 302 I.P.C. with Police Station Sampla against the petitioner and his brother. The petitioner was arrested as per police record on 29.12.1985. On 29.12.1985, another case under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TADA') for keeping in possession knife was also registered against the petitioner with Police Station, Sampla. Thereafter, the Police submitted two separate challans in Court. Both the cases were committed to the designated Court. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. and also convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment under Sections 25 and 27 of the Act read with Section 6 of the TADA. The sentences awarded to him were ordered to run concurrently by the designated Court as per judgment dated 18.4.1987 and order dated 20.4.1987 respectively. The sentence awarded under the Act read with Section 6 of the TADA had been undergone by the petitioner in the year 1987 while he was in custody in above mentioned case. The petitioner is presently undergoing life sentence awarded in the above mentioned case. It is also stated by the petitioner that after his arrest on 29.12.1985, he was bailed by the Supreme Court on 15.4.1989 and after dismissal of his appeal by the Apex Court, he had surrendered before the authorities on 19.2.1997. He claims that he was born on 15.3.1968. He is stated to have undergone sentence of 11 years 10 months and 24 days which included parole period of one year and 8 days. As on the date of occurrence, the petitioner was aged 17 years, 9 months and 10 days, therefore, he was a juvenile life convict person in terms of para 2(c) of the instructions dated 8.8.2000 (Annexure P-4) issued by the State Government. It has been provided in para 2(c) of the said instructions that a life convict person below 18 years at the time of commission of the crime and whose case is not covered in para 2(a) of the above stated instructions is required to undergo 8 years of actual sentence including the under-trial period provided total period of such sentence including remissions is not less than 10 years for his premature release. As the case of the petitioner is covered under para 2(c) of the aforesaid instructions dated 8.8.2000, the Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak, respondent No. 3, vide his letter No. 3437 dated 8.3.2001 had asked the petitioner to furnish the proof of his date of birth. Thereafter, he submitted the school leaving certificate to respondent No. 3. His case was recommended by respondent No. 3 to the State Government through the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh, respondent No. 2, for his premature release decision by respondent No. 1 being the competent authority as per letter No. 13551 dated 3.11.2001. In terms of the requirement of paras 4 and 5 of the aforesaid instructions, respondent No. 3 was duty bound to put up case of the petitioner to the authorities two months before the completion of the requisite period before the State Government through respondent No. 2. Instead of submitting of his case to respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 intimated to the Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak, respondent No. 3, vide letter bearing No. 1804 GI/G.3 dated 15.1.2002 informing him that premature release case of the petitioner falls under Clause (v) of para 2(a) of the government instructions dated 8.8.2000 and for that reason the premature release case of the petitioner, life convict, will be considered as and when he completes 14 years actual sentence including under-trial period provided the total period of such sentence including remissions is not less than 20 years. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 was directed that no such case should be referred to the head office until and unless there is some doubt in technicalities. Aggrieved by this action of respondent No. 2, the present petition has been filed on the ground that respondent No. 2 is not competent authority to determine the premature release of the petitioner on the ground stated by him in the petition.

(3.) I heard counsel for the petitioner and State counsel at length. It is manifest from the respective stands taken by the parties that according to the case of the petitioner, his case for premature release is covered by para 2(a) of the instructions dated 8.8.2000 (Annexure P-4) of the State Government and Clause (v) of para 2(a) does not apply to his case as the murder had taken place on 25.12.1985 which led to the registration of the case bearing FIR No. 247 dated 25.12.1985 under Sections 307, 324, 323 and 302 read with Sections 34 I.P.C. against the petitioner and his brother besides under the Act and the TADA for which separate FIR No. 249 dated 28.12.1985 was registered. The case set up by the respondent No. 2 in his order dated 15.1.2002 (Annexure P.6) is that case of the petitioner falls under Clause (v) of para 2(a) of Government instructions dated 8.8.2000.