High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Partap Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 February, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Partap Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 February, 2009
Criminal Misc. No. M-632 of 2009 (O&M)                          -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH
                   ****
                        Criminal Misc. No. M-632 of 2009 (O&M)
                              Date of Decision:17.02.2009

Partap Singh                                              .....Petitioner
            Vs.
State of Haryana and others                               .....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL

Present:-   Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
                       ****
JUDGMENT

HARBANS LAL, J.

This petition has been moved by Partap Singh against State of

Haryana and others under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

read with Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India for directing

respondents to consider and decide his case for pre-mature release as per

policy prevalent at the time of his conviction.

Reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 is taken on

record.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides

perusing the record with due care and circumspection. In re: State of

Haryana v. Mahender Singh and others, 2007 AIR Supreme Court

Weekly 6988, the Apex Court has ruled that “A-fortiori, the policy-decision

applicable in such cases would be one which was prevalent at the time of

his conviction.” Further in re: State of Haryana v. Bhup Singh and

others, 2009(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 654, the Apex

Court while considering an identical question observed as under:-
Criminal Misc. No. M-632 of 2009 (O&M) -2-

“We, therefore, are of the opinion that keeping in view the

decision of this Court in Mahender Singh (supra), the

impugned judgment should be modified directing the appellant

to consider the cases of the respondents. It is, therefore,

directed that if the respondents have not already been released,

the State shall consider their cases in terms of the judgment of

this Court in Mahender Singh’s case (supra) having regard to

the policy decision as was applicable on the date on which they

were convicted and not on the basis of the subsequent policy

decision of the year 2002.”

Adverting to the facts of the instant case, there is no gainsaying

the fact that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced on 12.12.1997 in

case FIR No.173 dated 13.12.1993 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC

registered at Police Station Battu Kalan by the Court of learned Sessions

Judge, Hisar.

This petition is disposed of, with the direction to the

respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the afore-

mentioned judgments delivered in re: Mahender Singh and others’ case

(supra) as well as Bhup Singh and others’ case (supra), having regard to

the policy decision as was applicable on the date on which he was convicted

within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this

judgment. If the petitioner’s case is covered by the policy decision

applicable in his case, he may be released as per rules.

Disposed of accordingly.

February 17, 2009                            ( HARBANS LAL )
renu                                              JUDGE

Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No