Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 25 (PNJ)

Ravi Kumar alias Bitu v. State of Punjab

2004-01-08

NIRMAL SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. - This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuing direction to the respondents for releasing the petitioner prematurely on usual terms and conditions under the instructions dated 12.12.1985 and further detention of the petitioner be declared violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and balance sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner may be ordered to be remitted in the light of the instructions Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-8 of the State Government . 2. The brief facts o the case are as under : Ravi Kumar alias Bitu petitioner was tried for the offence of murder by learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on 7th October, 1981. The petitioner had already undergone 9 years 3 months and 3 days substantive sentencee on the day when the petition was filed and was also granted remissions by the State Government as well as by the jail authorities for six years. 3. The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2828 of 1992 for pre-mature release on the basis of the instructions dated 12.12.1985 Annexure P-1. In the petition the stand of the respondent-State was that the convicts who were below 20 years of age, were required to undergo 5 years actual sentence. The case of the petitioner for the grant of premature release was considered by the State Government and rejected. This Court vide order dated 29th May, 1990 directed the State authorities to pass a speaking order within three months. As the case of the petitioner was not considered by the authorities, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Gurdaspur. 4. The State of Punjab issued instructions Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-8 for pre-mature release. The case of the petitioner was considered and rejected in view of various instructions issued by the State Government. The order of rejection was not communicated to the petitioner. The District Magistrate summoned the petitioner to appear before him and the following order was passed : "On the aforesaid subject, it is requested that convict Ravi Kumar son of Shri Badri Nath, in whose case Punjab and Haryana High Court, while deciding Writ Petition No. 742 of 1990, has ordered to decide has case within a period of three months. The said convict was ordered to be released on bail vide order No. 1217 dated 7.5.1990. Premature release case of the said convict has been considered and rejected vide Punjab Government order No. 1/1/90/90-IH-7/18172, dated 15.9.1992. As per the decision of the Government prisoner has to undergo the remaining sentence. You are, therefore, requested to arrest the convict immediately and thereafter to admit him in Central Jail, Jalandhar so that Government be informed about the action taken." 5. The petitioner has impugned the order on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. 6. On notice, the respondent filed reply in which it was pleaded that under the provisions of Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the convict is to undergo at least 14 years actual sentence before he can claim premature release. The petitioner has so far not undergone actual sentence of 14 years. Therefore, he is not entitled to be released prematurely. It is also pleaded that the petitioner has not maintained good conduct inside the jail, therefore, he is not eligible for his premature release under the instructions dated 25.2.1992 and 27.1.994 as he has committed the jail offence in the year 1989 and punishment awarded has not been quashed by any competent court of law. 7. Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already undergone the substantive sentence as per the provisions of Section 433-A Criminal Procedure Code He submitted that the case of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that the petitioner committed jail offence on 6.9.1989 as he was found talking with another prisoner at a very loud pitch which had disturbed the sleep of other prisoners and when the Assistant Superintendent who was on duty asked him to sleep and not to disturb others, he misbehaved and abused the Assistant Superintendent. He submitted that the authorities had rejected the case of the petitioner only on the ground of jail offence, but the same cannot be taken into consideration as per provisions of Section 516-B of Punjab Jail Manual and Note appended thereto. He submitted that the authorities had rejected the case of the petitioner only on the ground of jail offence, but the same cannot be taken into consideration as per provisions of Section 516-B of Punjab Jail Manual and Note appended thereto. He submitted that even though the petitioner has completed the substantive sentence but if the impugned order Annexure P-9 is not quashed then the petitioner will again be put behind the bar inspite of the fact that he has already undergone the substantive sentence as per the rules. 8. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, learned counsel for the State very fairly and candidly made a statement that perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has already undergone the substantive sentence. He further made a statement that the State has no objection if Annexure P-9 is quashed and the State may be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the instructions as the petitioner has already undergone the substantive sentence. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The case of the petitioner is to be considered in view of the provisions of Section 561-B of the Punjab Jail Manual and Note appended thereto which reads as under :- "For the purposes of preparing the rolls of prisoners under the above rules sentence awarded to a prisoner for an offence committed while in prison or during suspension of sentence will not be taken into account." 10. In view of the Note appended to Section 516-B ibid, the order dated 25.6.1993 (Annexure P-9) cannot sustain. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order dated 2.6.1993 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and the case is remitted to the Inspector General Prisons, Punjab (respondent No. 2 herein) to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for premature release in the light of the instructions issued by the respondents from time to time (i.e. instructions dated 12.12.1985 and Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-8). The case of the petitioner will be considred within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.