Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3080 (PNJ)

Ashwani Kumar Alias Ashu v. State Of Punjab

2010-11-17

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2010
Judgment Ram Chand Gupta, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of direction to the respondents to consider and decide the(premature release case of the petitioner) by not taking into consideration his alleged minor jail misconduct dated 3 1.1.2010, for which he has already been awarded punishment of stoppage of 25 days interview on the ground that he has (already undergone the sentence awarded to him)and is eligible to be released in accordance with the Instructions issued by the Government of Punjab on the subject and after setting aside the impugned order dated 20.5.2010 passed by the Superintendent, Borstal Jail, Ludhiana -respondent No. 3 ordering that the premature release case of the petitioner is not entitled to be considered until the expiry of five years from the date of the alleged minor jail misconduct Government Annexure R-2. 2. These facts have not been disputed by the learned State counsel. However, the learned State counsel has contended that the cases of premature release of convicts are considered provided the convict has maintained good conduct in jail and that good conduct is 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. It is further contended that though the petitioner has completed the requisite sentence, but his case for premature release was not considered on account of jail offence dated 31.1.2010. 3. There is no dispute regarding factual position. Admittedly, the petitioner has been awarded jail punishment. There is also a provision in the policy Annexure R-2, which reads as under : "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 5 years prior to the date of his eligibility for consideration for release." 4. However, in the present case, the alleged jail offence committed by the petitioner is a minor one regarding scuffle between the petitioner and other convicts in the jail and for that punishment of stoppage of 25 days interview was awarded to the petitioner. However, in the present case, the alleged jail offence committed by the petitioner is a minor one regarding scuffle between the petitioner and other convicts in the jail and for that punishment of stoppage of 25 days interview was awarded to the petitioner. On similar facts, Coordinate Bench in Teja Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2008 (1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal), 590 had ordered for consideration the petition for premature release by ignoring the conviction of the petitioner for a jail offence, for which punishment of forfeiture of 12 days remission was granted to him. 5. Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his premature release as per Rules, Instructions and Policy on the point, as he has already completed more than 10 years of actual sentence and more than 14 years of total sentence including remissions minus parole and while doing so, the fact of his conviction for jail offence dated 31.1.2010 would not be taken into consideration, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Petition disposed of.