CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chaman Lal Petitioner was tried and convicted for offences u/ Ss. 302 and 307 of the IPC by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence of murder vide judgment dated 29-10-1982. He was also awarded imprisonment for five years for the offence u/ S. 307, IPC and both the sentences were to run concurrently. Since the day of his arrest he was confined in jail and he had undergone actual sentence for a period of 10 years and 5 months and 23 days. He was granted remissions for 5 years 6 months 18 days. The State Government had issued various guidelines for exercise of the powers under Art. 161 of the Constitution, for grant of premature release to the convicts and the instructions contained in Annexure P/ 3 were applicable to the case of the petitioner who had undergone more than 8 1/2 years actual sentence, and more than 14 years sentence including remissions. Premature release case of the petitioner was forwarded to the Government and he was ordered to be released on 11-4-1991 vide order copy of which is Annexure P/4, Certain conditions were imposed as per this order for the release of the petitioner. After the passing of this order the complainant party became quite active and by exercising their influence in the political circle got another order passed on 19-7-1991 copy of which is Annexure P/ 5. On the basis of this order the case of the petitioner for his premature release was to be reviewed next year. The petitioner has assailed the order Annexure P/ 5 on the grounds that it was arbitrary, illegal and violative of Arts. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Order Annexure P/4 was passed in accordance with law in the exercise of powers under Art. 161 of the Constitution by the Governor of the State of Haryana and that order had not been revoked or amended. He has thus filed the present petition u /S. 482 of the Cr. P.C. read with Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India for his premature release.

(2.) In the return filed by the respondents it was pleaded that the premature release case of the petitioner was duly considered on 11-4-1991 and then it was reconsidered on 19-7-1991 and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the manner in which heinous and brutal crime of murder was committed it was ordered that his case be considered again after a period of one year. This fact was, however, admitted that the petitioner had undergone actual sentence of 9 years 10 months 9 days and his period of sentence with remission came to 15 years 5 months 12 days. It was, however, pleaded that the order dated 19-7-1991 was quite legal and was not violative of any provisions of the Constitution of India. The order Annexure P/4 had not become operative and the same was reviewed and revised in the light of latest instructions. This order was passed in supersession of order Annexure P/4 and that was the final order which was operative.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties.