JUDGMENT In this parole petition, the petitioner/convict has prayed for issuing a direction to the respondents for grant of benefit of state remission in pursuance of orders dated 30.03.2012 and 21.02.2014 for six months because he is serving for life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Section 364A, 387, 347, 324 and 120B of IPC imposed against him by the Additional District Judge (FT) No. 1, Udaipur, in Session Case No. 95/2007 vide judgment dated 01.05.2009. 2. In this case, Mr. S.S. Gour, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court. Learned Amicus Curiae submit that vide order dated 11.05.2016, the petitioner has been denied benefit of remission of sentence on the ground that as per orders dated 30.03.2012 and 21.02.2014, the said remission cannot be granted to those convict(s) punished under Section 120B, 224, 377, 396, 498-A, 466, 468, 469, 471 to 474, 366, 366-A, 368-B, 372, 373, 489-A, 489-B and 489-C of IPC, however, Section 120B of IPC is not an independent offence. Therefore, if a convict is punished with the aid of Section 120B of IPC for the offences u/s 224, 377, 396, 498-A, 466, 468, 469, 471 to 474, 366, 366-A, 368-B, 372, 373, 489-A, 489-B and 489-C of IPC, but admittedly the petitioner was convicted for the offences u/s 364A, 387, 347 and 324 read with Section 120B of IPC. Thus, upon wrong interpretation of aforesaid orders, the state remission has wrongly been denied to him. It is thus prayed that the respondents may kindly be directed to grant remission in pursuance of orders issued by the State Government on 30.03.2012 and 21.02.2014. 3. On the other hand, learned Government Counsel submits that there is no force in the arguments of learned amicus curiae because Section 120B has been specifically included in both the orders by the Government of Rajasthan, and on account of such disqualification, the grant of state remission has rightly been denied to the petitioner/convict. 4. 3. On the other hand, learned Government Counsel submits that there is no force in the arguments of learned amicus curiae because Section 120B has been specifically included in both the orders by the Government of Rajasthan, and on account of such disqualification, the grant of state remission has rightly been denied to the petitioner/convict. 4. We have considered the arguments of both the sides and also perused the disqualification provided for grant of state remission in the order dated 30.03.2012, which reads under: - 3- os canh tks fuEufyf[kr vf/kfu;eksa ds v/khu vijk/k ds fy;s fl) nks"k Bgjk;s x;s gks%& 1- vkS"kf/k vkSj izlk/ku lkexzh vf/kfu;e] 1940(1940 dh la[;k&23) 2- fons'kh eqnzk fofu;eu vf/kfu;e] 1973(1973 dh la[;k&48) 3- deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdhj.k micU/k vf/kfu;e] 1952(1952 dh la[;k&19) 4- [kk| vifeJ.k fu/kkZj.k vf/kfu;e] 1954(1954 dh la[;k&37) 5- vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e] 1955(1955 dh la[;k&10) 6- flfoy vf/kdkj laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1955(1955 dh la[;k&22) 7- lhek 'kqYd vf/kfu;e] 1962(1962 dh la[;k&52) 8- jktLFkku vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1950 9- Lokid vkS"kf/k ,oa eu% izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 10- fons'k eqnzk laj{k.k vkSj rLdjh fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1974(1974 dh la[;k&52) 11- yksd izfrfuf/ke vf/kfu;e] 1951(1951 dh la[;k&43) 12- Lokid vkS"kf/k vkSj eu izHkkoh iznkFkZ voS/k O;kikj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1988(1988 dh la[;k&46) 13- jk"V~h lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980(1980 dh la[;k&65) 14- Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 120ch] 224] 304[k] 376] 377] 396 vkSj 498&d] 466] 468] 471 ls 474] 366] 366&,] 366&ch] 372] 373] 488&,] 489&ch] 489&chA 15- ngst izfr'ks/k vf/kfu;e] 1961(1961 dh la[;k&28) 16- vkardoknh vkSj fo/oa'kdkjh fdz;kdyki fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1987(1987 dk la[;k&26) 17- fo/oa'kdkjh fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 2002@2002 dk la[;k&15 18- efgykvksa ds 'khy Hkax djus ds fy, cyiz;ksx ds vijk/kksa ls nf.Mr canhA 19- Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr nf.Mr canhA tqekZus dh ltk Hkqxrus ds ,ot esa jkT; ifjgkj dk ykHk Hkh ns; ugha gksxkA " 5. Similarly in the order dated 21.02.2014, same disqualification was included, which is also quoted herein below: " os canh tks fuEufyf[kr vf/kfu;eksa ds v/khu vijk/k ds fl) nks"k Bgjkus x;s gks%& 1- vkS"kf/k vkSj izlk/ku lkexzh vf/kfu;e] 1940 2- fons'kh eqnzk fofu;eu vf/kfu;e] 1973 3- deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdhj.k micU/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 4- [kk| vifeJ.k fu/kkZj.k vf/kfu;e] 1954 5- vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e] 1955 6- flfoy vf/kdkj laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1955 7- lhek 'kqYd vf/kfu;e] 1962 8- jktLFkku vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1950 9- Lokid vkS"kf/k ,oa eu% izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 10- fons'k eqnzk laj{k.k vkSj rLdjh fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1974 11- yksd izfrfuf/ke vf/kfu;e] 1951 12- Lokid vkS"kf/k vkSj eu izHkkoh inkFkZ voS/k O;kikj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 13- jk"V~h; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 14- Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 120ch] 224] 304[k] 376] 377] 396 vkSj 498d] 466] 468] 471 ls 474] 366] 366,] 366ch] 372] 373] 488,] 489ch] 489chA 15- ngst izfr'ks/k vf/kfu;e] 1961 16- vkradoknh vkSj fo/oa'kdkjh fdz;kdyki fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1987 17- fo/oa'kdkjh fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 2002 18- efgykvksa ds 'khy Hkax djus ds fy, cyiz;ksx ds vijk/kksa ls nf.Mr canhA 19- Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/k vf/kfu;e] 1988 20- izksVsD'ku vkWQ fpYM~u Qzkse lSDlqvy vkWQsalst ,DV] 2012 21- jktiklk 2007 esa fu:) canh 22- ih0lh0ih0,u0Mh0Vh0 ,DV] 1994 23- foLQksVd inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1908 tqekZus dh ltk Hkqxrus ds ,ot esa jkT; ifjgkj dk ykHk Hkh ns; ugha gksxkA " 6. Undisputedly, the petitioner/convict was convicted for the offences u/s 364A, 387, 347, 324 with the aid of 120B of IPC by the learned A.D.J. (FT) No. 1, Udaipur, in Session Case No. 95/2007 vide judgment dated 01.05.2009. The main sections, with which petitioner/convict has been convicted, are not prohibited sections or falls under the disqualification clause, and only Section 120B of IPC, which is not independent offence, is included under the disqualification clause. In our opinion, if the contention of learned Government Counsel is accepted that Section 120B of IPC, be included in the disqualification, then, obviously all those offences punishable under IPC, with which the accused is convicted with the aid of Section 120B of IPC, will not be entitled for state remission under the orders issued by the State Government. 7. The interpretation of the respondent to treat Section 120B IPC an independent section for disqualification, the state remission is not sustainable in law. 7. The interpretation of the respondent to treat Section 120B IPC an independent section for disqualification, the state remission is not sustainable in law. The main offences must fall under the category of disqualification and in that eventuality, the state remission can be denied to the convict if he/she is convicted with the aid of Section 120B of IPC. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the reason for denial for state remission to the petitioner on the ground that he was convicted with the aid of Section 120B IPC, is illegal. Further, if this interpretation is taken into account by the Deputy Superintendent, District Jail, Pratapgarh, then, all those convict(s) punished with the aid of Section 120B, will not be entitled to get benefit of remission in spite of the fact that they were punished under the prohibited sections not provided in the disqualification clause. 8. Consequently, the present parole petition is allowed, and the orders impugned dated 11.05.2016 and 23.05.2016 passed by Deputy Superintendent of District Jail, Pratapgarh, are hereby quashed and set aside, the case is remitted to the Deputy Superintendent, District Jail, Pratapgarh, to decide the case of petition for grant of remission in accordance with orders dated 30.03.2012 and 21.02.2014 passed by the State Government while ignoring the fact that the petitioner was convicted for the offences 364A, 387, 347, 324 IPC with the aid of Section 120B afresh within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.