ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Ashok Kumar is undergoing life imprisonment in District Jail, Gurgaon. He was convicted by Sessions Judge, Narnaul. on 15th January, 1990, that is after the enforcement of Section 433 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which came into force on 18th December, 1978. In this writ petition be has prayed that direction be issued to the respondent State of Haryana to consider and decide his case of premature release. The petition is resisted by the State of Haryana, Respondent No. 1, and the superintendent, District Jail, Gurgaon, Respondent No. 2, on the plea that the petitioner's case for premature release cannot be considered as he has not yet complete 14 years' actual imprisonment as provided in Section 134-A of the Code.

(2.) RELYING on judgment of the Supreme Court in Maru Ram etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1980 S.C. 2147, it has been held by a Division Bench of this court in Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana etc. 1987(2) Recent CR 268, (Criminal writ petition No. 628 of 1985) decided on May 2, 1986, that para 516 -B of the Punjab Jail Manual and similar executive instructions issued before 18th December, 1978, the date on which Section 433-A was enforced, cannot be invoked by the detents who were convicted after due date. It was observed there in that the correct interpretation of Matu Ram's case is that Section 433-A of the Code has a sway ever para 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual or similar other executive instructions regarding the early release of the life convicts, whose cases fall under this section. These convicts are a class apart and cannot invoke the aid of the instructions, incompatible with section 433.A of the Code, issued by Central or State Governments prior to 18th of December, 1978."

(3.) THE learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner could not point out any instructions issued by the State of Haryana after 18th of December, 1978, in the light of section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the absence thereof, the instant petition is not maintainable, it being not disputed that the case of the petitioner lies within the four corners of section 433-A, which picks out of a mass of imprisonment cases a specific class of life imprisonment cases and subjects it explicitly to a particularised treatment.