Kishan Lal @ Neta vs Government of India

R.L. Anand, J.

Krishan Lal son of Vijay Ram has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of appropriate directions against the respondents, seeking indulgence of this Court on the premises that since he has completed the requisite qualifications for premature release, therefore, the respondents should be directed to release him in view of the policy adopted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

According to the petitioner, he was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on 20th March, 1984. He was taken into custody by the Police on 30th January, 1983. The petitioner further states that upto 20th March, 1998 he was served 13 years 1 month and 10 days of actual sentence and with remissions 14 years 11 months and 20 days. The grouse of the petitioner is that his case for premature release has been declined by the respondentauthorities on the plea that the petitioner has not so far undergone 14 years actual sentence, as required under Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Moreover, his conduct during his confinement in the various prisons has not bee found satisfactory. Considering the above circumstances, the President of India has rejected the petition dated 19th May, 1997 of the petitioner, praying his premature release.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted on 20th March, 1984. Firstly, the guidelines which were relevant on the date of the conviction, which are supposed to be made applicable to the case of the petitioner should be applied. In the alternative, it was submitted that the petitioner has complied with guidelines as laid down in para No. 431 of the New Punjab Jail Manual 1996, which has been adopted by the U.T. Administration, according to which the petitioner was supposed to undergo 10 years actual imprisonment and with remission 14 years imprisonment. In spite of the fulfilment on the part of the petitioner, an arbitrary decision has been taken by the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for premature release on merits. It was also submitted that the order Annexure P3 declining the case of the petitioner, so far as it mentions "his conduct during his confinement in the various prisons has not been found satisfactory", is vague in nature as no incident has been specified therein.

On the contrary the case of the petitioner has been opposed by the respondents by stating that since the petitioner has not undergone actual sentence of 14 years, he is not entitled to be considered for premature release. Moreover, the conduct of the petitioner when he was serving the sentence in different jails was not satisfactory.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the notification dated 2nd April, 1997, issued by the Home Department of the U.T. Administration, vide which the U.T. Administration had adopted the Punjab Jail Manual, 1996. As per No. 431 of the new Punjab Jail Manual, 1996, which deals with the procedure under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and Sections 432, 433, 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner was supposed to serve 10 years of actual sentence and with remissions 14 years. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, shows that the case of the petitioner is not covered within the definition of `heinous crime'' as given in para No. 432(1) of the Punjab Jail Manual. It was a murder of ordinary nature and the petitioner was supposed to undergo actual imprisonment for 10 years and with remissions 14 years. In the present case the petitioner has already undergone 13 years 1 month and 10 days of actual sentence upto 20th March, 1998. He has completed 14 years 11 months and 20 days, including remissions. The above aspect has not been taken note of by the U.T. Administration while passing impugned order (Annexure P3) dated 9th January, 1998.

Resultantly, I allow this petition, set aside the impugned order and direct the U.T. Administration to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made above and pass a fresh order within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of this order.

Dasti.