RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJ Kumar petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Criminal P.C. read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of the directions by quashing the orders dated 26.11.1997 Annexure-5 and the orders dated 20.3.1998 Annexure P-6. According to the petitioner, his case for premature release was wrongly declined by the respondent authorities under an illegal plea that since the petitioner had committed the murder of child of 11/12 therefore, his case is covered as per the instructions dated 17.7.1997 Annexure R-3. The respondents have further taken the stand that the instructions dated 17.7.1997 supersede all the earlier instructions and in this manner the petitioner cannot take the advantage of the instructions dated 27.2.1984 Annexure P-2 though these instructions were applicable qua the petitioner on the date of his conviction.

(2.) THE stand of respondent authorities does not appear to be correct. Firstly, it is a settled principle of law that the instructions which are applicable on the date of the conviction should be made applicable in order to consider the case of a convict for his premature release. Faced with this difficulty, the learned Counsel for the respondents has referred to the orders dated 11.11.1997 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and orders dated 5.1.1998 and submitted that similar point had arisen in State of Haryana and others v. Somnath and the point is under adjudication before the Supreme Court and in these circumstances the petition should be dismissed. I do not agree with the contention of Shri Azad Singh because the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court though has to be respected by all the subordinate courts of the country, yet this court is of the opinion that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court may not come to the rescue of the respondents on account of the peculiar facts of this case. Earlier Raj Kumar filed a petition seeking his premature release mainly on the ground that the instructions applicable on the date of his conviction should be the guiding factor for releasing him prematurely. That Crl. Misc. No. 16450-M of 1997 titled Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana was disposed of by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Malte on merits vide his judgment dated 2.9.1997 and it was held as follows :-