ZORA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ZORA Singh who is undergoing imprisonment for life and is confined in District Jail, Mohindergarh, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for his pre-mature release.

(2.) THE petitioner was sentenced on 19.4.1982 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, for offences under Sections 302 and 449 I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life. On 12.5.1993 he had undergone actual sentence for 11 years 5 months and 4 days and total sentence undergone including remissions was 17 years 6 months and 7 days. According to the instructions issued by the State Government on 28.9.1988 the case of the petitioner for his pre-mature release was to be considered after completion of 8-1/2 years of substantive detention and a period of 14 years including remissions. As the petitioner was eligible for pre-mature release his case was recommended by the jail authorities. The State Level Committee considered the matter and in its meeting dated 20.3.1991 decided that the case of the petitioner may be reconsidered after the expiry of one year. The petitioner then filed a Criminal Misc. No. 10210-M of 1991 and during the pendency of that petition the State Government issued instructions dated 19.11.1991 according to which the convicts who had not committed heinous crime, their cases for pre-mature release were to be considered after completion of 10 years of actual sentence including undertrial period provided that total period of such detention including remissions was not less than 14 years. The case of the petitioner for pre-mature release was put up before the Committee constituted by the Government for consideration whereupon it was ordered that as the case of the petitioner was governed by para 2(a) of the latest Government instructions, the same shall be considered after completion of 14 years of actual sentence including under-trial period after earning at least 6 years remissions. This order was passed on 30.12.1992, copy of which was Annexure P-4. The petitioner alleged that the order rejecting his case was against law as he had not committed any heinous offence and his case was not covered under para 2(a) of the instructions dated 19.11.1991.

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