Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 63 (DEL)

MEHTAB SINGH v. STATE OF DELHI

1988-03-25

CHARANJIT TALWAR, M.K.CHAWLA

body1988
Charanjit Talwar, J. ( 1 ) AS common questions arise for consideration, the two petitions namely Cr. Writ 514 of 1987 and Cr. Writ 448 of 1987 are being disposed of by a common judgment. ( 2 ). The petitioner who are undergoing life imprisonment having been convicted for the offence of murder, seek directions for their immediate release from Central Jail, Tihar as according to them they have completed over 14 years of imprisonment, including remissions. Their reliance is on paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual, under which provision, they aver that their cases were recommended for premature release by the Jail Superintendent but rejected by the Sentence Revising Board on arbitrary and nonexistent grounds. ( 3 ). Mehtab Singh is the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 514 of 1987. 0m Parkash is the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 448 of 1987. Mehtab Singh was convicted for having murdered his daughter on 25th January, 1978. In the counter-affidavit it is admitted that as on 30th September, 1987, he has undergone a total sentence including remissions and under-trial period of 15 years 7 months and 25 days. According to the respondents, he has still to undergo sentence of 4 years 4 months and 5 days to complete 20 days rigorous imprisonment, which according to them, a person convicted for life has to undergo under the Jail Manual. It appears that in accordance with paragraph 516-B of the Jail Manual, the case of this petitioner was recommended for premature release by the Jail Suyerintendent. ( 4 ). Om Parkash who is the petitioner in Criminal Writ No. 448 of 1987 was arrested on 13th July, 1977 for an offence punishable under Section 302, Indiapenal Code. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on 7th December, 1977. It is admitted in the affidavit of the Superintendent, Central Jail, which has been filed by way of return to the writ petition that as on 30th September, 1987 this petitioner had undergone a total sentence of 14 years 5 months and 21 days, including undertrial period and period of remissions. His case also, it appears, was recommended for premature release by the Jail Superintendent. ( 5 ). The Sentence Revising Board in its meeting held on 25th June, 1987 considered the cases of the above said two writ petitioners. His case also, it appears, was recommended for premature release by the Jail Superintendent. ( 5 ). The Sentence Revising Board in its meeting held on 25th June, 1987 considered the cases of the above said two writ petitioners. As per the copy of the minutes which has been annexed with the counter-affidavits, Mehtab Singh s name appears at SI. No. 37 and 0m Parkash s at SI. No. 40. The Board did not recommend the cases for premature release on the following grounds: "all the above cases have been considered separately by the Board on its merits. In all the above cases, the report of the local police and the Probation Officer has not been made available. Except the cases at Sr. No. 32, 33 and 34 the certified copy of the judgment has also not been placed on record. The Secretary of the Board expressed his inability to place the complete record before the Board since the reports were not received from the concerned agency in time. In view of the fact that the relevant record has not been placed before the Board, the Members are not in a position to make any recommendation about their release. " ( 6 ). The respondents case during arguments before us was that efforts are being made to collect the reports from the concerned agencies and the cases would be put up before the Sentence Revising Board in its next meeting, which was to take place by the end of December, 1987. It appears that the said meeting did take place. By an order of 29th January, 1988, on the recommendations of the Sentence Revising Board, the unexpired portions of sentence of 14 life convicts were remitted and they were prematurely released. A copy of that order was sent to the Registrar by the Jail Superintendent vide his letter of 3rd February, 1988. On scrutiny of that list we find that the names of the present petitioners were not recommended. The fresh reasons, if any, for rejecting their cases have not been communicated to us. It has, therefore, to be assumed that all the three reasons quoted above or anyone of them has persuaded the Board not to recommend the names of these two petitioners in its last meeting. ( 7 ). We have held in a similar Criminal Writ Petition No. 475 of 1987 (Harbhajan Singh v. Lt. It has, therefore, to be assumed that all the three reasons quoted above or anyone of them has persuaded the Board not to recommend the names of these two petitioners in its last meeting. ( 7 ). We have held in a similar Criminal Writ Petition No. 475 of 1987 (Harbhajan Singh v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and another) decided on 3rd March, 1988 that non-placing of the judgment whereby a convict was found guilty before the Board, ought not to be made ground for rejecting the case of the convict for premature release as the judgment would have only shown that the conviction and sentence was due to grave offence which is common in all convictions of murder offences. We held that reason to be arbitrary. ( 8 ). We may point out that about ten years ago, due to fire in the Record Room of the Sessions Court, some old records get burnt. Probably because of that reason, some of the judgments are not available in the Record Room of that Court and hence cannot be produced by the Record Keeper. Whatever might be the reason for non-placing of the concerned judgment, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the procedure of remission and premature release such as provided under paragraph 516-B of the Jail Manual, which procedure has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147 . The other two grounds kept in view by the Sentence Revising Board in its meeting held on 25th June, 1987 namely, non-availability of the reports of the local Police and of the Probation Officer, cannot be held to be cogent. The petitioners have been in jail now for a considerable long period and cannot be considered to be in social contact wilh the community at large. As such neither the local police nor the Probation Officer would have any means to remark on their conduct and behaviour. It is the Superintendent of Jail whose report is to be considered of paramount importance. From the reading of the said provision of the Jail Manual, it appears that that is a prerequisite to the powers to be exercised for premature release. In the present cases it is admitted that the Superintendent Jail did recommend the cases of the petitioners. It is the Superintendent of Jail whose report is to be considered of paramount importance. From the reading of the said provision of the Jail Manual, it appears that that is a prerequisite to the powers to be exercised for premature release. In the present cases it is admitted that the Superintendent Jail did recommend the cases of the petitioners. As both the petitioners were convicted and sentenced prior to 18th December, 1978, i. e. , the date from which Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure came into operation, under law they do not have to undergo actual physical rigorous imprisonment of 14 years. Asperpara516-B of the Jail Manual, their cases having been recommended by the Jail Superintendent after the period of 14 years rigorous imprisonment, including the period of remissions, the State has to show that its action in not releasing the petitioners at this stage is based upon cogent material (Dr. N. S. Jain v. Delhi Admn. and another, Cr Writ No. 129 of 1985, decided on 22nd July, 1985 and reported in Crimes 1985 (2) 521 ). The State has failed to do so. Thus the action has to be struck down. ( 9 ). We accept the writ petitions and direct premature release of the petitioners from Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.