IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.29474 of 2008
Date of decision : 11.11.2008
Suraj Mal .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. V.K.Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.
S. D. ANAND, J.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr.S.S Mor. Learned Senior
Deputy Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the
respondents.
The petitioner filed Criminal Misc. No. 1730-M of 2008 for
redressal of his grievance that the competent authority was not inclined to
consider his premature release plea in spite of the fact that he had already
undergone actual sentence for more than 14 years and total period of
sentence undergone by him was for more than 17 years. That petition was
disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Sham Sunder, J.) vide
order dated 4.7.2008.
The competent authority (State Level Committee) considered
the premature release of the petitioner in compliance with the order dated
2.7.2008 (Annexure P-4) of this Court and declined the plea by observing
that petitioner would become eligible for consideration of premature
release only after he had undergone total period of sentence for 20 years.
The view flowed from the inference that the matter is governed by the
instructions presently in currency. That order also drew sustenance from
the provisions of Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In support of the averment that the policy in force on the date
of conviction is to govern the consideration of the issue of the indicated
category, learned counsel relies upon the Apex Court judgment rendered
in State of Haryana Vs. Mahender Singh and others 2007 (12) SCALE
669. It is also pointed out that a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Augustine
George Masih, J) had also passed a similar order on 5.8.2008 in Criminal
Misc. No. 39648-M of 2007 (Annexure P-4/A). It is pointed out that the
position of law indicated by the Apex Court in Mahender Singh’s case
(supra) had been accepted by the respondent-State (“Counsel for the
petitioner relies upon the Supreme Court judgment in a case State of
Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh and others 2008 Criminal Law General 444 to
submit that the instructions prevalent at the time of conviction of the
petitioner would be applicable to the case of the petitioner for consideration
of his premature release and not the present instructions which have been
applied by the State. This position in law is accepted by the counsel for
the respondent State.”)
The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned
order passed by the competent authority shall stand quashed. The view
obtained by the State Level Committee in the matter of instructions which
shall govern consideration is held to be invalid. It is held that, in the light of
the Apex Court judgment in Mahender Singh’s case (supra), the
competent authority is obliged to consider the premature release case of
the petitioner in terms of the policy in currency on the date of conviction.
The exercise shall be concluded within seven days from today. It will be
for the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority.
Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under
the signatures of the Court Secretary.
November 11, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE