JUDGMENT
U.L. Bhat, C.J.
1. The petitioners herein have been convicted for offences including the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They submitted applications through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Gwalior, praying for release on licence under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners’ Release on Probation Act, 1954, for short, the ‘Act’ and Rule 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners’ Release on Probation Rules, 1964, for short, the ‘Rules’. The State Government rejected the applications on consideration of the views of the Probation Board which acted on the recommendation of the District Magistrate. The respective orders of the State Government are under challenge in these cases.
2. In Misc. Civil Case No. 47 of 1988 (State v. Chandersingh) of the Indore Bench of the High Court, the Court took the view that an application for release has to be disposed of on consideration of the applicants’ antecedents only prior to the commission of the crime which led to the conviction and conduct in the prison and that the nature and character of the crime and the conduct of the applicant after the commission of the crime till he entered the prison are not be taken into consideration. The Division Bench which heard the present petitions doubted the correctness of the view taken in Chander Singh’s case and referred the questions involved to a Larger Bench. Since the answer to the questions would necessarily lead to disposal of the writ petitions, we propose to deal with the questions and also dispose of the writ petitions.
3. The Act has been enacted to provide for the release on license of certain prisoners on conditions imposed by the Government. An order for release on license can be passed if it appears to the Government from his “antecedents and his conduct in the prison that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life, if he is released from prison” and subject to the stipulated conditions regarding supervision. Same edition of the Act contains the word “antecedent” instead of “antecedents”. The official Hindi text refers to “Shasan Ko Uske Purva Vritta Aur Bandi Griha Men Uske Acharan Se”. This would clearly indicate that “antecedents” is the word used in Section 2. Section 3 provides that the licence is to be in force until the date on which the person released would, in the execution of the order of warrant authorising his imprisonment, have been discharged from prison but for his release or until the licence is revoked, whichever is earlier. According to Section 4, the period of release on licence is to be reckoned as part of period of imprisonment for the purpose of computing the amount of remission of sentence which might be awarded to him under remission rules. Under Section 6, Government has power to revoke the licence at any time for reasons to be recorded in writing after giving opportunity to the person concerned to present his case before the District Magistrate. Section 7 renders punishable escape from supervision by the released absconder. Section 9 confers on the Government power to make rules consistent with the Act. Reformatory aspect of penalogy is the basis of the statute. The statute serves public interest and the interest of the prisoners and their families.
4. Rule 4 of the Rules deals with eligibility for release. Any prisoner other than one specified in Rule 3 who has served one-third of his sentence of imprisonment or a total period of five years without remission, whichever is less, may be released by the Government of licence. Rule 6 deals with procedure. An application for release has to be made in Form A to the Superintendent. The Superintendent has to examine the application to see whether it is duly filled up and if it is in order, he shall entertain and register it. Ineligibility leads to rejection of the application. If the is found eligible, the Superintendent has to fill in the columns in the application meant to be filled in by him and forward the same to the District Magistrate. District Magistrate shall consult the Superintendent of Police and the Probation Officers and after considering their report, fill in the entries meant to be filled in by him and forward the same to the Inspector-General of Prison. The application, thereupon, shall be considered by the Board consisting of the Home Secretary to the State Government, the Inspector-General of Prison and a nominated non-official member. On receipt of the recommendation of the Board, Government shall pass such order as it deems proper. Form A contains columns to be filled in by the District Magistrate. Col. 4 reads thus: “Having regard to the Prisoner’s antecedents and his conduct in prison, is he likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life if released on licence?”.
5. We may also advert to the relevant provisions of the Prisoners Act, 1900 and the Madhya Pradesh Prisons Rules, 1968. Section 31-B deals with release of prisoners on parole. In deciding whether prisoner is to be released, his conduct in prison is to be considered. Section 31-C deals with powers to release the prisoner for special reasons. Here also, his conduct in prison is to be considered. Rule 358 deals with release of prisoners under 14 years rule. This rule requires consideration of “full information regarding the character of his crime, his conduct in prison and the probability of his reverting after release to criminal habits or instigating others to commit crime”. Rule 358 dealing with final or permanent release requires consideration of wider range of aspects while Sections 31-B and 31-C deal with temporary release and require consideration of only the prisoner’s conduct in prison.
6. In chander Singh’s case, the Court took the view that the expression, ‘antecedents’ (erroneously referred to as “antecedent”) would take in only the conduct preceding the crime for which the prisoner is undergoing sentence. The Court referred to Rule 358 of the M.P. Prisons Rules, where reference is made to “character of the crime and probability of reversion after release to criminal habits or instigating others to commit crime” and indicated that in the absence of such words in Section 2 of the Act, the character of the crime and the prisoner’s conduct after the crime till he entered the prison cannot be taken into consideration. It is the correctness of this view which has been doubted by the referring Bench.
7. “Antecedent” has been explained in Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, at p. 84 as meaning “prior in point of time”. In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Fourth Edition, Vol. 1, at p. 144, it is stated that “antecedents” is an ambiguous word which may refer either to previous history or to the parents of the offender and their conduct in his upbringing. It also refers to a brief passage in R: v. Vallet (1951) 1 All E.R. 231, to the effect that the word “antecedent”, occurring in the Probation of Offenders Act, is as wide as can be conceived. It is stated that the word refers primarily to previous history and past record. “Antecedents” without any word of limitation has a wide connotation so as to signify conduct for the entire preceding period, entire period preceding imprisonment; The word “antecedents” and “conduct in prison” have been used to indicate conduct at two different stages, namely, antecedents prior to impriosnment and conduct in prison.
8. With respect, we are unable to agree with the approach made it Chander Singh’s case, drawing inspiration from Rule 358 of the M.P. Prisons Rules, 1968. Rule 358 is a specific rule laying down detailed guidelines for release of prisoners after imprisonment for fourteen years. The fact that such detailed guidelines have been framed in 1968 under the Central Act of 1900 cannot help us to understand the words “his antecedents and his conduct in prison” used in a totally different context by entirely different legislative body in 1954. Chander Singh’s case had ignored the wide amplitude of the word “antecedents”, the significance of use of the word “his” twice to qualify “antecedents” and “conduct in prison”, the vigour of the expression “Uske Purva Vritta”.
9. There is no logic in restricting the Sweep of the word “antecedents” to the period prior to the commission of crime. A person who commits a crime may be at large for a considerable period or he might have been in judicial custody for a considerable period. It may be that conviction takes place several years after the crime. Legislative intention could not have been to ignore as irrelevant the conduct of the prisoner between the date of the crime and the date of his entry into prison. So also, the nature and circumstances of the crime cannot be irrelevant in deciding whether a prisoner is to be released on license. Background, setting and modus operandi of crimes could be different. A crime can be carefully, premeditated and executed or it can be committed-on the spur of the moment. A crime can be committed for strong motive or for insignificant or no motive. A crime may be gruesome or otherwise. It may be committed for monetary gain or for no gain. The circumstances of the crime will be helpful in throwing a flood of light on the personality of the criminal. It could not be the legislative intention to ignore these valuable clues to his personality. The decision of the government to release or not is dependent on its opinion whether the prisoner is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life. The opinion is to be based on the consideration of his antecedents and his conduct in prison. All aspects of his antecedents preceding his entry into prison –which will include antecedents prior to the crime, the circumstances of the case – conduct subsequent to crime and in prison have to be taken into consideration in the process of formation or opinion on the crucial question whether he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life. No aspect by itself may be decisive. No aspect is to be ignored. The total picture and the colours which go to make up the picture are relevant. This is implied in the words used in Section 2 as well as the Hindi text of the provision.
10. The crucial words in Section 2 are “from his antecedents and his conduct in the prison”. There was a view presented before the referring Bench that the antecedents must be confined to his life in prison. Such a view would be wholly illogical. The Legislative has not stated “from his antecedents and conduct in the prison”. The word “his” has been used twice, to qualify “antecedents” as well as “conduct in prison”. The expression “his antecedents” by itself is capable of comprehending within its ambit “his conduct in prison” also since “antecedents” would mean “antecedent to the consideration by the State Government of the prisoner’s request for release”. The Legislature evidently desired to give due importance to “conduct in prison”. That must be the reason why words “his conduct in prison” have been incorporated in the provision though even in the absence of such words, his conduct in prison being antecedent to the conviction, would be relevant. There is nothing in the scheme of the Act or the provision of Section 2 of the Act to indicate that “antecedents” are restricted to any period. By “antecedents” is meant, “antecedents” before his entry into prison, whether before or after the crime which led to the conviction. That the Statute is based on the reformatory aspect of penalogy is no reason to hold that the expression “antecedents” should be confined either to the period prior to the commission of the crime or the period spent in prison.
11. We, therefore, hold that the word “antecedents” relates to the period prior to the commission of the crime, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the period subsequent to the commission of the crime.
12. Records show that the State Government merely purported to abide by the recommendation made by the District Magistrate without any independent application of mind. The State Government has to consider the applications of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules as interpreted in this order. State Government is directed to do so within a period of three months from today. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
13. It is to be noticed that in some writ petitions challenging rejection of application for release on licence or seeking direction for disposal of application, orders for interim release. This would be against the scheme and purport of the Act, particularly in cases where the prisoners have been convicted for serious crimes or crimes affecting public well-being. Release can follow only after due consideration of all aspects referred to earlier and having regard to materials and opinions furnished by the reporting officers and the Board. It would be wholly inappropriate for the Court to pass an interim order of release, at any rate, without regard to such materials.
14. We desire to place on record our appreciation of the assistance rendered by Shri J.P. Gupta, learned Counsel, who was appointed amicus curiae and the learned Advocate General.