Kamaljit vs State of Haryana and anr.

Ujagar Singh, J.

This petition is for premature release on the ground that the petitioner was of the age of 191/2 years at the time of the alleged commission of the offence on 25.11.1979. The main reliance for the prayer is on the case Hava Singh v. State of Haryana, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 411 (SC) : 1987(III) SVLR (Cr.) 85 , wherein it was observed :

"........ ........ ........

further that `Section 433A, Criminal Procedure Code would not operate where a person is detained by an order under section 10A of the Act (Borstal Act, 1926). Section 433A of the Code was introduced not to set at naught provisions like 10A of the Act which dealt with a special class of offenders like adolescent offenders but only to regulate capricious and arbitrary decisions under Section 432 of the Code of the remission rules sometimes reducing the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed on persons who had been sentenced to imprisonment for life to short periods like five to six years......... ........ ........"

Hava Singh''s case (supra) was referred in case Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana and others, 1988(1) SVLR (Cr.) 23, and it was specifically held as under :

"In Hava Singh''s case the definition was not placed for consideration before the Court and, therefore, the conclusion which has been reached is not correct. The Punjab Borstal Act does not have application to an offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the conclusion in Hava Singh''s case is not correct. The petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Punjab Borstal Act as he has been sentenced to imprisonment for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for which the sentence of death is prescribed as an alternative."

In view of Subhash Chand''s case (supra), Mr. Mehtani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that this petition may be allowed to be withdrawn.

Dismissed as withdrawn.