CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHAMAN Lal petitioner who was under going imprisonment for life was ordered to be released on 11.4.1991 by the Government after his mercy petition was considered. On 19.7.1991 another order was passed whereby the State Government deferred the case of premature release of Chaman Lal for one year holding that the same will be reviewed next year. That order dated 19.7.1991 was assailed by Chaman Lal by moving this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After hearing the counsel for the parties in that case it was observed that since the earlier order of premature release has not been revoked, the petitioner was entitled to be released on the basis of the same. The respondents were directed to release the petitioner forthwith in pursuance of the earlier order. Lal Chand who was a complainant in the case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code wherein conviction of Chaman Lal was recorded, has filed the present petition, for recalling the order dated 5.3.1992 whereby Chaman Lal was ordered to be released forthwith. He alleged that he had assailed the order vide which Chaman Lal was released prematurely alongwith others by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5338 -M of 1991 and in view of that petition the respondent State passed order deferring the case of the main petitioner Chaman Lal for year. In view of that order the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by him became infructuous and the same was disposed of without passing any order. In the petition filed by Chaman Lal assailing the order vide which his case was deferred for one year, material fact were concealed and no mention was made that a Criminal Miscellaneous was already pending. Hence the petition.'

(2.) IN the reply filed on behalf of Chaman Lal, it was maintained that Lal Chand was not a party to the earlier proceedings. Thus petition filed by him was not maintainable. Even otherwise, the complaint had no locus stand to challenge the order granting premature release to Chaman Lal. The question of premature release was between the convict and the State of Haryana and the complainant did not come in the picture. Other allegations made in the petition were controverted. - Return was also filed by respondent No. 1 State of Haryana affirming the allegations made in his petition by Lal Chand.

(3.) THE main grouse of the counsel for Lal Chand applicant was that order of the release of Chaman Lal was impugned in a Criminal Miscellaneous filed by Lal Chand complaint but that fact was not mentioned in the petition while impugning the subsequent order whereby case of premature release of the petitioner was deferred for one year but this grievance of the complainant is without any basis. Chaman Lal was not in any way debarred form assailing the validity of the order whereby his case for premature release was postponed for one year after his release was ordered by the Governor, vide order Annexure P.4 in the main petition. No findings were given on merits in the petition filed by Lal Chand and the petition was dismissed being infructuous. The main petition filed by Chaman Lal was contested by State of Haryana and other but in the return filed by the respondents it was not disclosed that any miscellaneous petition filed by Lal Chand was pending and had any bearing on the case. Releasing a convict before he completes his full term of imprisonment is a matter between the prisoner and the State and the complainant has hardly any locus standi to raise an objection to the order passed by the Court. The complainant party can never be amenable to the granting of premature release to the convict and any opposition by that party does not furnish a valid ground for refusing premature release. Chaman Lal was within his rights to impugn the order vide which his case was postponed for review after a year, when once he was ordered to be released prematurely. Lal Chand has locus standi to file the present petition for recalling the order of this Court date 5.3.1992. The petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.