Parkash vs State of Haryana

G.S. Chahal, J.

Parkash petitioner, who was aged 171/2 years, at the time of his conviction by the Court of Session, Bhiwani and presently confined to the District Jail, Bhiwani, has moved this criminal miscellaneous U/s 482, Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking his premature release.

The petitioner has averred that he was convicted alongwith six other persons under sections 148, 302, 323, 324 and 324 read with section 149 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment on two counts and various other terms of imprisonment. He has undergone 7 years, 4 months actual sentence and has earned remissions for 4 years and 10 days. The State Govt. of Haryana has issued instructions on 28.9.88, Annexure P2 and taken a decision to release the convicts fulfilling the conditions, mentioned therein. Paragraph 2 of the instructions provides that the cases of Juvenile life convicts below the age of 18 years at the time of commission of offence and female life convicts may be considered after 6 years of actual sentence including under trial/detention period, provided the total of such period of detention including remission is not less than 10 years. The petitioner, being a juvenile life convict, is entitled to release since he has undergone the requisite period of sentence. The Superintendent, District Jail, Bhiwani, after examining the case of the petitioner, in the light of instructions, Annexure P2, forwarded the same to the concerned authorities. The petitioner had maintained good conduct during his stay in Jail and this fact has been taken into consideration by the Jail Superintendent. There was also no complaint regarding the petitioner''s antecedents/conduct during the period he enjoyed parole, totaling 51/2 months. The village community has no objection to his release. However, the petitioner has not been released and he has learnt that his case has been deferred for one year.

In the return filed, the respondentauthorities have taken the plea that after the coming into force of section 433A Cr.P.C., the petitioner has to complete the minimum imprisonment for 14 years, but, in accordance with the policy dated 28.9.89, the petitioner''s case was submitted to the Govt. for recommendation to the State Level Committee for further submission to the Governor for exercising his sovereign declaration of premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. As opined by the Committee, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and communicated by the Govt. the case of the petitioner was ordered to be reconsidered after one year.

Under the Instructions, Annexure P2, policy regarding premature release was framed and it was laid down that the cases of juvenile life convicts, below the age of 18 years, at the time of commission of offence a and female life convicts, maybe considered after 6 years of actual sentence, including under trial/detention period, provided the total of such period of detention, including remissions, is not less than 10 years. It is not disputed that the petitioner has undergone the requisite period of imprisonment of 10 years (6 years actual and the remaining as remission). Under the Policy, he has become eligible to be considered for premature release. The order postponing the consideration of his premature release Annexure R 7, so far relevant may be reproduced as under :

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

3104/C Parkash s/o Risala

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the committee is of the opinion that his premature release case may be reconsidered after one year.

This order, however, does not give any reasons for which the decision has been postponed for a period of one year.

In Gurbax Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990(2) Recent CR 213 : 1990(1) A.I.C.L.R. 916, J.S. Sekhon, J. while dealing with the case of rejection of mercy petition of a convict, which order did not contain any reasons, made the following observations :

".........Once the State Government has laid down such guidelines, it was incumbent upon it to give reasons for withholding the concession of remission of sentences on the mercy petition because the possibility of arbitrariness on the part of the State Government cannot be ruled out in treating different persons differently under the same set of instructure and similar circumstances....."

I endorse the above view of J.S. Sekhon, J. and hold that the order Annexure R7 cannot be justified, as the same does not give any reasons for postponing the case, without deciding the merits. I set aside the imputed order and direct the respondentauthorities to consider the case of the petitioner and decide it expeditiously, preferable within 3 months. With this direction, the criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of.

misc disposed of.