Surinder Gupta, J.@mdashIn this petition, the petitioner seeks the direction to the respondents to consider his case for premature release as he has already undergone the requisite-period of imprisonment as per Government Instructions dated 08.07.1991 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner was awarded sentence of imprisonment for life in case bearing FIR No. 38 dated 6.5.1998 for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar vide judgment dated 30.09.2002. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment was dismissed by this Court on 01.11.2004. The petitioner has alleged that he has already undergone about fourteen yearn six months of actual sentence and with remissions more than twenty years. As per the Government Instructions dated 8th of July, 1991, he was required to undergo ten years of actual sentence and fourteen years with remissions. The petitioner filed a petition i.e. CRM-M-16270 of 2010 which was disposed of on 14.01.2011 with direction to State Government to consider his case for premature release. His case was not considered and he had to file another petition i.e. CRM-M-21945 of 2011 which was disposed of as the case of petitioner for his premature release after consideration had been rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 29.07.2011. The reason for rejection of his case for premature release was not tenable, however, as per order dated 29.07.2011, the authorities were required to reconsider the case after 2.5.2012. As the respondents have not reconsidered his case for premature release, hence, this petition.
2. In reply, the respondents have contested the petition with the plea that earlier the case of petitioner for his premature release was declined vide order dated 29.07.2011 as 2000 intoxicating tablets were recovered from him on 2.5.2007 and he was awarded punishment of loss of ten days'' remission. The case of premature release of petitioner is considered if the convict had not committed any jail offence for a period of five years prior to the date of eligibility for consideration for his release as per the Government Policy of 1991.
3. The petitioner committed another prison offence for which FIR No. 133 dated 04.10.2011 for the offence punishable u/s 52A(i) of Prisons Act 1894 was registered in which he was convicted by die Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana on 19.11.2012 and awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year. The case of petitioner for his premature release can be submitted only after expiry of period of five years of the offence committed on 04.10.2011.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel and have perused the paper book with their assistance.
5. The reliance has been placed by the State on Instruction No. II of the policy Annexure P-1 for grant of remission which provides as follows:-
(II) The cases of premature release will only be considered provided the convict has maintained good conduct in jail For this purpose, good conduct means that he has-not committed any jail offence for a period of five years prior to the date of his eligibility for consideration for release as per para. 1.1 above.
6. Learned State counsel has argued that the last time, the petitioner was involved in a prison crime on 04.10.2011. Now, he is entitled for consideration of his case after 04.10.2016.
7. Learned counsel for die petitioner has argued that the commission of jail offence is no legal ground to deny the premature release. He has relied upon the observations in the case of Rai Kumar v. State of Punjab etc. (Criminal Misc. No. 55534-M of 2006, decided on December 12, 2006).
8. The petitioner has undergone actual imprisonment for about fifteen years and eight months by now. His case for premature release was last considered on 29.07.2011 but was declined with the observations as follows:-
Whereas though convict has completed the required sentence for premature release and concerned district authorities too have recommended for the premature release but 2000 intoxicating tablets were recovered from the convict on dated 2007 and Superintendent Jail had awarded punishment of 10 days loss of remission and in the instructions of government dated 08.07.91 in para. 2 it is available as under:-
(II) The cases of premature release will only be considered provided the convict has maintained good conduct in jail. For this purpose, good conduct means that he has not committed any jail offence for a period of five years prior to the date of his eligibility for consideration for release as per para. 1.1 above.
Therefore the premature release case of this convict shall be eligible for review on 02.05.2012 after a period of 5 years from the commission of his jail offence on 02.05.2007 on this base the D.G.P. Jails Punjab has opposed the premature release of the convict.
Thereafter the case of the petitioner has not been considered by the competent authority. The plea of the respondent-State that it was not submitted to the State Government as he has not completed die period of five years after the prison offence dated 04.10.2011.
9. This practice of the jail authority of not forwarding his case to the State Government for consideration is to be depreciated because they have limited role of forwarding a case to the competent authority for consideration along with all the facts available on file. They cannot assume the role of deciding as to whether the convict''s case can be allowed or not. Respondent No. 2 must look into this aspect and take immediate and appropriate action to avoid the recurring of such lapses in future.
10. Now, the question which arises is whether the petitioner is entitled for premature release under the State Government Policy of 1991?
11. This fact is not disputed that the case of premature release of a life convict is governed by the policy of the Government prevailing on die date of judgment of conviction and not by the policy which exists on the date of consideration of his premature release. The reference in this regard can be made to the observations in
The counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Subkash v. State of Haryana, 1994 (3) Recent CR 489 to urge that commission of jail offences would be no legal or valid ground to deny the concession of premature release if it has become due, specially so when the convict had already been punished for the jail offences. While so holding, this Court in Subhash''s case (supra) has relied on the case of Lila Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988 (1) RCR 28. It was held that jail offences committed by the convict for which he has already been punished, cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the case for premature release. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner for consideration on his premature release has been declined on the ground that the same can be considered only if the convict has maintained a good conduct in jail. As per the reply, good conduct means that the person has not committed any jail offence for a period of five years prior to the date of his eligibility for consideration of release. It is accordingly pleaded that the benefit of premature release cannot be granted to the petitioner as his case is not covered by the instructions, as aforementioned. The stand of the State cannot be appreciated being contrary to the law laid down by this Court. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment of this Court, referred to above. It has been clearly held by this Court that commission of a jail offence is no legal ground to deny the premature release, especially when the person has been punished for such a misconduct. Accordingly, the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for premature release cannot be sustained. The petitioner is entitled to a consideration of his case for premature release in terms of the instructions, Annexure P-1.
In view of the above observations, the State Authorities are directed to consider die case of petitioner for his premature release without taking into consideration the jail offence committed by him and pass necessary orders within eight weeks of the receipt of this order, failing which the petitioner be released on parole on his furnishing personal bond and a surety bond to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib. The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and will keep peace and shall not indulge in any nefarious activity whilst on parole.
With the observation made above, the present petition is disposed of.
