Criminal Misc. No. M-2132 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Criminal Misc. No. M-2132 of 2009
Date of Decision:16.03.2009
Suresh
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. Varinder Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
****
JUDGMENT
HARBANS LAL, J.
This petition has been moved by Suresh under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for holding that he has been illegally deprived of the
benefit of pre-mature release and his further detention is violative of
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and he is entitled to be
released forthwith on usual terms and conditions.
The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner
was involved in FIR No.184 dated 5.6.1993 registered under Sections
302/307/34 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Sadar,
Fatehabad. He was convicted and sentenced on 10.10.1995 by the Court of
learned Sessions Judge, Hisar. The petitioner as per the details of period
given in this petition has undergone more than 10 years of the actual
sentence and more than 14 years of the sentence including remissions.
While undergoing the sentence, he maintained good conduct. He was not
Criminal Misc. No. M-2132 of 2009 -2-
involved in any other crime. He earned remissions on account of good
conduct and enjoyed the benefit of parole and furlough. He is a well-
behaved convict in the jail. As per Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure added on 18.12.1978, the life convicts who were found guilty for
having committed an offence for which death is one of the punishment
provided by law are required to undergo at least 14 years of imprisonment.
As per this Section, the appropriate government is fully competent to
commute the sentence of imprisonment for life into imprisonment for a term
not exceeding 14 years. In Maru Ram v. Union of India and others,
(1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 107, the provisions of the said Section
have been upheld by the Apex Court. On 10.10.1995, when the petitioner
was convicted, the government policy dated 4.2.1993 was in force. As per
this policy, the petitioner was required to undergo 10 years’ actual sentence
and 14 years sentence including remissions. The State of Haryana has failed
to consider the petitioner’s case for grant of pre-mature release and deferred
the pre-mature release case of the petitioner till he completes 14 years of
actual sentence and 20 years’ sentence including remissions but without
following the observations rendered by the Apex Court in re: State of
Haryana v. Mahender Singh and others, 2007(4) Recent Criminal
Reports (Criminal) 909.
In the joint written statement, filed on behalf of the
respondents, inter-alia it has been pleaded that in case Maru Ram (supra)
and in another case bearing caption Mohd. Munna v. Union of India and
others, (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 417, it has been held that the
sentence of imprisonment for life was nothing else than an imprisonment
which lasted till the last breath. The sentence of imprisonment for life is a
Criminal Misc. No. M-2132 of 2009 -3-
imprisonment for whole of the remaining period of the convicted persons’
natural life, unless the same is commuted or remitted by appropriate
authority under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The remission and commutation of sentence is not a fundamental right of a
convict. The Government has framed the pre-mature release policy dated
13.8.2008 in which it has been categorically mentioned that the policy shall
be applicable to all pre-mature release cases of life convicts with effect from
the date of notification irrespective of their date of conviction. The date for
consideration of pre-mature release of a convict would be the date of
completion of his requisite sentence mentioned in the policy. The petitioner
has undergone only 8 years, 4 months and 27 days of the actual sentence
and a total sentence of 10 years, 8 months and 28 days including
remissions. He does not qualify the conditions of pre-mature release as per
Para 2(b) of Haryana Government Pre-mature Release policy dated
13.8.2008. Lastly, it has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides
perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for
the parties have reiterated the averments as enshrined in their respective
pleadings. In Mahender Singh’s case (supra), Maru Ram as well as
Mohd. Munna’s cases were also considered. Their Lordships in re:
Mahender Singh (supra) were pleased to hold that `Although no convict
can be said to have any constitutional right for obtaining remission in his
sentence, he in view of the policy decision itself must be held to have right
to be considered therefor. Whenever, thus a policy decision is made,
persons must be treated equally in terms thereof. A `fortiori’ the policy
decision applicable in such cases would be which was prevailing at the time
Criminal Misc. No. M-2132 of 2009 -4-
of his conviction. Furthermore, if the Punjab Rules are applicable in the
State of Haryana in view of the State Re-organisation Act, no executive
instruction would prevail over the statutory Rules. The Rules having
defined `convicts’ in terms whereof a `life convict’ was entitled to have his
case considered within the parameters laid down therein, the same cannot be
taken away by reason of an executive instruction by redefining the term `life
convict’.” It has also been observed that in Mohd. Munna’s case, Maru
Ram’s case (supra) was not considered. Further in re: State of Haryana v.
Bhup Singh and others, 2009(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal)
654, the Apex Court observed as under:-
“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 10.10.1995 in
case FIR referred hereinbefore.
In view of the preceding discussion, the respondents are
directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of Mahender Singh
and others’ case (supra) as well as Bhup Singh and others’ case (supra),
Criminal Misc. No. M-2132 of 2009 -5-
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.
March 16, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No