Rama Y. Bhandekar v. State of Goa — 1991 DIGILAW 352 (BOM)

ORDER H.W. Dhabe Dr. E.S. D' Silva JJ - This application is made from Jail by a prisoner who is a life convict undergoing sentence for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for his premature release on the ground that he has completed 10 years of R.I. without any kind of facility. He has claimed premature release on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the report of which has appeared in Press and a copy of which is annexed to the application by him. The learned counsel for the State has however brought before us the full text of the above judgment of the Supreme Court referred to by the prisoner. To appreciate the question of premature release of the prisoner, it is material to state that his conviction is after 18-12-1978 and Section 433-A is therefore applicable to him. 2. Although the prisoner has mentioned in his application that he has completed 10 years of imprisonment without any remission or facility, it is not in dispute that he has actually completed 12 years and 19 days of actual imprisonment as on 31st of July 1991 without any remission. The learned Counsel for the State has fairly pointed out to us that as on the above date the period of 4 years and 5 months is credited to the prisoner by way of remission, including the State remission which would make his sentence more than 14 years inclusive of remission. 3. The learned Counsel for the State has urged that a similar application filed by the prisoner was dismissed by this court by an order dated 8-12-1989, i.e. the prisoner's Misc. Criminal Application No. 85 of 1989. The learned counsel for the prisoner has however, brought to our notice that at that time the judgment of the Supreme Court on the basis of which the prisoner is claiming premature release by this application was not there and therefore, he is now claiming premature release on the basis of and in terms of the said judgment. The question, therefore, is whether the prisoner is entitled to premature release as per the above Judgment of the Supreme Court. 4. Perusal of the said judgment of the Supreme Court shows that as regards the life convicts who were convicted prior to 18th December, 1978, i.e. the date when Section 433-A of the Cr. The question, therefore, is whether the prisoner is entitled to premature release as per the above Judgment of the Supreme Court. 4. Perusal of the said judgment of the Supreme Court shows that as regards the life convicts who were convicted prior to 18th December, 1978, i.e. the date when Section 433-A of the Cr. P.C. came into force, the Supreme Court has directed the State of U.P. that those who have served a sentence of 10 years actual imprisonment and above or 14 years of imprisonment with remission should be considered for premature release within a period of six months from the date of the said order. As regards the life convicts who were convicted after 18th December 1978, the Supreme Court was of the view that their cases should be considered for release in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1930 or under the relevant provisions of the Jail Manual prescribing conditions for premature release as the case may be within a period of nine months from the date of the said order. 5. The above order of the Supreme Court in relation to the life convicts who were convicted after 18th, December, 1978 does not show that even though the life convicts who were convicted after 18th December, 1978 have not served actual imprisonment of 14 years as required by Section 433-A of the Cr.P.C, still, they should be released. It is possible that as submitted on behalf of the State, the said life convicts although convicted after 18th, December, 1978 might have been under-trial prisoner prior to their conviction and after taking that period into consideration they might have actually completed the actual sentence of 14 years as required by Section 433-A of the Cr.P.C. for which reason the appropriate authorities were directed to consider their release. 6. However, there is a latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Ashok Kumar @ Govt. v . Union of India Ors.1, in which after upholding the validity of Section 433-A of Cr.P.C. it is held that a life convict covered by section 433-A Cr. P.C. cannot invoke for his premature release under Section 432 and 433 of the Cr. P.C. if he has not completed 14 years of actual imprisonment without any remissions. 7. v . Union of India Ors.1, in which after upholding the validity of Section 433-A of Cr.P.C. it is held that a life convict covered by section 433-A Cr. P.C. cannot invoke for his premature release under Section 432 and 433 of the Cr. P.C. if he has not completed 14 years of actual imprisonment without any remissions. 7. In view of the above judgment of the Supreme Court and view of the mandate of Section 433-A of the Cr.P.C. the prisoner in the instant case who admittedly has not completed actual 14 years imprisonment cannot claim premature release. 8. Hence the instant application filed by the prisoner in question is rejected. Application rejected. 1. JT 1991(3) S.C. 46.