TEJA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TEJA Singh, a convict who is undergoing life imprisonment, having been convicted for offences under Sections 302, 307, 436, 427, 148, 149 IPC and 3(4) of Terrorists Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, has filed this writ petition with the grievance that his continued detention even on completion of sentence of over 14 years actual is rendered illegal and further that his prayer for pre-mature release has been wrongly rejected by the Government. The petitioner was tried for the above noted offence by Designated Court at Faridkot in case No. 39 of 1.2.1990. The conviction and sentence was awarded to the petitioner on 18.2.1994. As on 2.5.2007, the petitioner has undergone 14 years 2 months 17 days of actual sentence and by counting the remissions and by excluding parole, he stated to have undergone 19 years 7 months 3 days of total sentence. It is averred that in terms of instructions/notification issued by the Government dated 8.7.1991, a convict who undergoes an actual sentence of 12/18 years by including remission etc., then he becomes entitled to pre-mature release. The case of the petitioner was considered by the Government for pre-mature release vide order dated 5.7.2007. A perusal of the order would show that record of the petitioner-convict shows that he had availed six months parole on the basis of fake farad of agriculture land on 13.9.2004. This is stated to be a serious offence as per Section 8.3 of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners Rules, 1962. A appraisal of the said mis-conduct was made by the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala, on 19.10.2004. The following stipulation has been made in Para 1.1(11) :-

(2.) ACCORDINGLY , Director General of Police (Jails) has not recommended the pre-mature release of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, impugning the said order and to seek direction to consider his case of pre-mature release.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, would contend that this action of the State in not considering the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release is totally unjustified and would violate his legal and fundamental rights. The counsel contends that even if the petitioner has committed a jail offence, then he was tried for the same and punished with forfeiture of 12 days remission. Taking this punishment into consideration for not considering the case of the petitioner for his pre-mature release would amount to punishing the petitioner once over again and may attract the provisions of double jeopardy. The counsel would further refer to the contents of Para 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual and the note appended thereunder to say that for the purpose of preparing the rolls of prisoners under the above rules, sentence awarded to a prisoner for an offence committed while in prison or during suspension of sentence will not be taken into account. In this regard, counsel has also referred to the case of Ravi Kumar alias Bitu v. State of Punjab, 2004(2) RCR(Criminal) 5 (P&H).