Mange Ram vs State of Haryana

B.S. Nehra, J.

Reply filed.

The petitioner is seeking relief for his premature release under the instructions issued by the Government of Haryana vide its memo No. 36/11/86 JJ (2), dated 28.9.1988, through the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Police Department, to the Director General and Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana. According to para 2(c) of this communication, the petitioner was required to undergo a total period of 14 years of sentence inclusive of remissions, the period he remained in detention during trial and the period he actually underwent sentence after his conviction. The provision further lays down that the actual sentence, which is required to be undergone by the convict was 81/2 years.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had undergone, actual period of 81/2 years sentence before the new instructions were issued by Government of Haryana on 9.11.1991. According to the new instructions, the actual period of sentence, which is required to be undergone by at convict to enable him to press his claim for premature release is ten years. Shri S.S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the new instructions issued by the Government are inapplicable to the petitioner''s case and, therefore, the respondent is not justified in urging, as it has done in Annexure R1, that the petitioner''s case is covered by the new instructions. This contention of Shri S.S. Rana is well founded. The petitioner''s case has to be considered and decided under the instructions dated 28.9.1988.

Keeping the aforesaid facts and circumstances in view, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioner''s case for premature release within a month in accordance with the instructions issued by the State Government vide its Memo. No. 36/11/86 JJ (2), dated 28.9.1988. The petition is disposed of accordingly.