Madan Lal vs State of Haryana

Dr. (Mrs.) Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Petitioner is claiming two reliefs in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 302M of 1998. One is that he has not been granted remissions under instructions (Annexures P5 to P11) and second is that if those instructions are considered then the petitioner is entitled to get remissions of three years 9 months. He also submits that as per the instructions (Annexure P2 and P3), his case falls under para 2(b) of these instructions and he is entitled for premature release after undergoing 14 years actual sentence including remissions but excluding parole. Calculating from that angle if remissions of three years 9 months are allowed to the petitioner by the time he filed the petition he has undergone 17 years 1 months 15 days actual sentence inclusive of remissions minus parole. On that premise, the petitioner is seeking both these reliefs.

Respondents have denied the petitioner''s claim for premature release vide order (Annexure P4) wherein it is mentioned that till 10.3.1997 the petitioner has undergone 11 years 9 months 3 days actual sentence inclusive of remissions, minus parole and since as per the instructions, he has not undergone 14 years total sentence including remissions minus parole, his prayer for premature release was declined.

Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, submits that the petitioner''s case falls under para 2(a) of the instructions (Annexure P3) dated 4.2.1993. He submits that the petitioner was convicted on 19.12.1986 for an offence under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, according to the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, this is a case of an offence of bride burning. Hence, as per instructions (Annexures P2 and P3) paragraph 2(a), petitioner is not entitled to the relief of premature release as prayed for.

After hearing the rival contentions, in my considered view, petition deserves to be allowed.

Petitioner was convicted for the aforementioned offences which were committed on 2.5.1986. The offence of bride burning was brought on the statute book on 19.11.1986. Under Article 20 of the Indian Constitution, the petitioner cannot be said to have been convicted for the offence of bride burning under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, which was not an offence on 2.5.1986, the date of which this offence was committed. Hence, this objection is devoid of any substance that petitioner''s case falls under para 2(a) of instructions (Annexure P3).

In my considered view, the petitioner''s case is squarely covered by the instructions (Annexure P2) dated 21.2.1984, which was in force on the date of commission of the offence as well as the date on which the petitioner was convicted. Under these instructions, as adult male life convict is entitled for premature release when he complete 81/2 years of substantive sentence and 14 years sentence including remissions. It is an admitted case that the petitioner is not allowed remissions under government instructions (Annexures P5 to P11) which were passed under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the petitioner is allowed remissions under these instructions, he may be entitled to earn three years 9 months remissions and if this period is added to his actual substantive sentence which is of 11 years 6 months 22 days plus ordinary remissions period of two years six months 28 days, the petitioner''s actual sentence inclusive of remissions comes to 17 years 1 months 15 days minus parole period.

In view of the above facts, petition is allowed. Respondents are hereby directed to consider the petitioner''s claim for remissions under instructions (Annexure P5 to P11) and after granting him remission under these instructions, to consider his case for premature release within one month from the date on which copy of the order is placed before the competent authority.