Rajinder Kumar vs State of Haryana and others

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

This is a petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India besides u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of appropriate writ that the petitioner is entitled to the special remission.

The relevant facts are that petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for 7 years having been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code. He claims that special remissions have been granted to many other prisoners including those who have committed offences punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and he cannot be discriminated.

Notice of the petition has been issued to the State of Haryana. In the reply filed preliminary objection has been taken that special remission has been granted as per orders issued by Government of Haryana dated 29.4.1993 to the convicts undergoing sentences. In cases and offences pertaining to moral turpitude and against social order of the Society have been made not eligible for the reward of remission. As per the Instructions of the Government, certain category of prisoners are kept out of the special remission system including those punished with respect to offences punishable under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code.

I have heard counsel for the parties.

State of Haryana has appended a copy of the Instructions dated 29.4.1993 passed by the Govt. of Haryana. The relevant portion of the said Instructions is being reproduced below :

"In exercise of the power conferred by Subsection (1) of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Governor of Haryana hereby grants ex post facto Special Remission to the prisoners who happened to be confined in jails, in the State of Haryana on 26th January, 1973 and who have been convicted by Civil Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction in the State of Haryana on the eve of Republic Day, 1993. The remission is granted on the following scale :

Remission

Convicts who have been sentenced for a period exceeding 10 years. 2 months

Convicts who have been sentenced for a period of exceeding 2 years upto 10 years. 1 months

Convicts who have been sentenced for a period upto 2 years. 15 days

Provided that : (i) No remission will be granted to persons convicted of either rape or dowry death, abduction of a child below 14 years and his murder.

(ii) No remission will be granted to persons convicted under N.D.P.S., TADA, abduction, unnatural offences, robbery, dacoity and official Secret Act.

(iii) The remission will not exceed 1/4th of the period of sentence."

It is apparent from the aforesaid that no remission is being granted to persons convicted of rape, dowry death and similar other offences mentioned therein involving moral turpitude and other such serious offences.

What Article 14 forbids is hostile discrimination and no reasonable classification. Equality before law does not mean that the same set of law should apply to all persons under every circumstance ignoring differences and disparities between men and nature of offences. It is for the State to make reasonable classification which must fulfil two conditions: (1) The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia. (2) The differentia must have reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

In the present case, it is apparent that the persons convicted of offences like rape, dowry death, murder of a child abducted have been differentiated and no special remission has been granted. This indeed is a reasonable classification because it is felt that they should not be entitled to benevolent provisions of remission.

No other point was urged.

For the reasons stated above, the petition fails and is dismissed.