Mallu Ram vs Financial Commissioner

H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral)

By this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Mallu Ram has sought his premature release on the ground that he had completed the requisite period of sentence as required vide Annexure P2 and was, therefore, entitled to be released, The petitioner was arrested on September 11, 1981, for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and was convicted on May 18, 1982, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar. It is the case of the petitioner that on April 8, 1994, he had undergone 12 years, 5 months and 27 days of the sentence and had, in addition, earned remisions of 6 years and 3 months meaning thereby that he had undergone more than 18 years 8 months of the sentence imposed. The case for premature release of the petitioner was considered by the State Government and vide Annexure P3, was rejected on the ground that as the crime committed by the petitioner fell under para 2 (a) of Annexure P2, being a heinous crime, and as such he was not entitled to premature release till he completed 14 years of actual sentence. The rejection of the case of the petitioner led to the filing of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4864M of 1993, and while disposing of the matter vide judgment dated November 2, 1993, the court directed the respondents to reconsider the matter and pass a speaking order within six weeks in the light of the observations made therein. It appears that while the matter was yet pending before the authorities concerned the petitioner through a different counsel filed Criminal Misc. No. 5625M of 1993 and on December 10, 1993, this Court once again quashed Annexure P3 and ordered the premature release of the petitioner keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The State Government subsequently filed an application in this Court pointing out that while in the earlier petition, a direction had been given to reconsider the case of the petitioner within six weeks, in the second petition, an order had been made that the petitioner be released prematurely and as the two orders contradicted each other, some amendment was necessary in the orders. This clarification was, accordingly, given vide order dated February 4, 1994 and it was directed that as the order passed in Criminal Misc. No. 4864M of 1993, were earlier in point of time it was that order that was required to be complied with. It is to be noted, however, that in both the orders of this Court referred to above, the positive finding was that the crime committed by the petitioner did not fall within the ambit of paragraph 2(a) of the instructions Annexure P2 and as such the said crime could not be classified to be the heinous crime and as it was covered under paragraph 2(b) the petitioner was eligible for reconsideration of his case for premature release on that basis. Nevertheless, despite the aforesaid finding the case of the petitioner has now been reconsidered in pursuance to the order of this Court and once again rejected vide Annexure R1 dated April 27, 1994, on the ground that the crime committed by the petitioner and his coaccused was a heinous one and covered by paragraph 2 (a) of Annexure P2. The relevant portion of the rejection order is reproduced hereunder :

"When Charan Singh had tried to escape, first blow was given by Teja Singh accused with Gandasa falling on the head of Chanan Singh and after this blow, Chanan Singh fell down and thereafter all the accused started causing injuries by showering indiscriminate blows with their respective weapons exhibiting extreme type or brutality just on an innocent law abiding citizen who at least objected to taking illicit liquor through his fields which is against the interest of society and thus it was a most cruel and brutal murder as if there was no law for them. Therefore, the committee is of the opinion that this case is covered under para 2(a) of the Government instructions dated February 4, 1993 as in other cases as quoted there are quite different and the motives are also different."

It will, therefore, be seen that the State level committee despite this Court''s holding to the contrary in two decisions has once again held the matter to be covered by paragraph 2(a) of Annexure P2. That being the situation, the reasons given by the committee vide Annexure R1, are to my mind absolutely unsustainable.

Mr. Azad Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has placed reliance on Annexure R2 a Judgment of the Supreme Court to the effect that the High Court should only direct the authorities to consider the case in such like matters and not direct the premature release itself. This contention had been dealt with while disposing of Criminal Misc. No. 5625M of 1993 on December 10, 1993, but was repelled. For the reasons given therein, this objection is also to no avail.

For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed and a direction is given to the respondents to release the petitioner prematurely forthwith on the usual terms and conditions.