DHARAMBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Dharambir has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying to this Court for the issuance of suitable directions to the respondents to grant to him and count the remissions of 11 months towards the total sentence undergone by him, which has already been granted by the State Government to all other prisoners. Further prayer made by the petitioner is that he is entitled to premature release in view of the citation Surinder Kumar @ Chhinda v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) R.C.R. 413.

(2.) THE petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. He was taken into custody by the Police on 19th March, 1989. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on 16th April, 1993. The parameter for premature release of the petitioner is that he should undergo 10 years actual and 14 years with remission. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was convicted and sentenced in the year 1993. He remained under detention for four years from 1989 to 1993. From 1993 onwards he has undergone more than five years of sentence. In this manner he is about to serve about 10 years of actual on 18th March, 1999. The petitioner further submits that though he is going to serve 10 years of actual sentence, but he cannot earn remission of four years till at least he serves more than four years. The counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner serves for actual 14 years sentence from 19th March, 1989, it would mean that the petitioner qualifies for premature release somewhere in the year 2003 and in these circumstances the very object of the guidelines laid down by the State will stand frustrated.

(3.) THE other prayer of the petitioner is that the period of remission awarded by the Government be counted from when the petitioner was facing detention during the trial. This request of the petitioner also cannot be accepted because the petitioner was not convicted nor can deem to have been convicted prior to 16th April, 1993. The citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts in hand. In the cited case the petitioner had already served 14 years of actual sentence. The intention of the instructions issued by the State Government is that before the case of a convict is considered for premature release, he must undergo 14 years of either actual or with the aid of remissions. No merit. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.