Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 552 (PAT)

Hakim Singh v. State Of Bihar

2002-04-29

S.N.JHA, T.P.SINGH

body2002
Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking direction upon the respondents to give full benefit of the remission provisions of the Bihar Jail Manual to the petitioner and upon so giving the benefit, order his release. 2. The petitioner is serving sentence of life imprisonment for having committed offence under section 302 of the Penal Code, apart from conviction under section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. Pursuant to the earlier direction of this Court, the l.G. (Prisons) Bihar, after considering the case of the petitioner, passed an order on 1.4.2002 allowing the petitioner total remission of 691 days. According to the l.G. (Prisons), the total period of incarceration, inclusive of period of remission as of date, comes to 16 years and odd months, which is less than the requisite period of 20 years, the petitioner cannot be released, The l.G. (Prisons) also filed affidavit to the above effect. 4. Not satisfied with the affidavit, on the ground that it does not indicate the breaks-up of remission allowable under the different provisions of the Bihar Jail Manual, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner is entitled to different kinds of remissions under Rules 715, 716, 719 and 725 of the Manual, the order/affidavit should have indicated as to under which rule/rules remissions have been allowed and the extent of remissions in terms of those rules. In its order dated 5.4.2002 this Court clarified that rule 715 and rule 716 are mutually inclusive as remission under rule 716 can be allowed only in lieu of remissions allowable under section 715, and similarly under rule 719 persons doing personal service as cook and sweeper on Sundays and holidays alone are entitled to remission, in addition to any other remission under different rules of the Manual. The Court also clarified that rule 725 contemplates special remission to persons other than those undergoing sentence referred to in rule 711 for special services rendered by them and same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Court, however, observed that the petitioner is entitled to know as to how many days of remission has been allowed under rule 719, and similarly, as to whether his case for special remission under rule 725 has been considered by the authority or not. 5. Two affidavits sworn by the I.G.(Prisons) thereafter were filed-one on 22.4.2002 and the other today. 5. Two affidavits sworn by the I.G.(Prisons) thereafter were filed-one on 22.4.2002 and the other today. In the former affidavit, the particulars of remissions under different rules of the Manual have been indicated in the form of a chart enclosed with the affidavit. In the affidavit filed today it has been stated that there is no record of the petitioners performing any job or doing any work to make him eligible under any of the categories mentioned in rule 725 and thus he has not been found eligible to be considered for special remission under that rule. 6. Counsel for the petitioner tried to find loopholes in the stand of the I.G. (Prisons). He fairly stated that the petitioner cannot claim special remission under rule 725 as already observed by this Court in order dated 5.4.2002, but submitted that as he has performed certain duties which is evident from the Convicts History Tickets enclosed as Annexure-3, he was/is entitled to remissions under rule 719, Rule 719, as already indicated above, refers to personal services as cook and sweeper rendered on Sundays and holidays. This Court in writ jurisdiction cannot make any investigation and hold that the petitioner had, in fact, performed the duties of cook or sweeper on Sundays and holidays and, therefore, it is not possible to record any finding one way or the other on the point, we are of the view that even if some remissions were to be allowed to the petitioner under rule 719, having regard to the fact that he has till date served sentence of little over 16 years (inclusive of remissions) which does not entitle him to be released, no useful purpose will be served by probing the matter further. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the stand of the I.G. (Prisons) it is open to him to file representation and satisfy him (I.G. Prisons) that he had, in fact, performed duties of cook/sweeper on Sundays/holidays entitling him to remissions under rule 719. 7. With these observations, the petition is dismissed.