Dalip Singh vs State of Haryana and anr.

B. S. Nehra J.

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking the release of the petitioner prematurely. The petitioner, who is stated to be more than 88 years, of age, was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, Shri B. L. Gulati vide his judgment dated 1791984. It is averred that his case was recommended for premature release at the time of the visit of the Chief Minister, Haryana to Hissar Jail on 2511988. The matter was then referred to the Inspector General of Prisons but the respondents rejected his case on the ground that the crime was of heinous nature. It is alleged that the decision of the respondents is illegal as they have not considered his good conduct and old age.

In the reply filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India has held in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. The State of Maharashtra & others, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 600, that imprisonment for life is to be treated as imprisonment for the whole life for the convict and he cannot claim his premature release unless the State reduces or remits the remaining portion of sentence of a convict through a written order under Section 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim his premature release as a matter of right. It has been added that the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment five times for five murders each under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and to fine under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. Besides this, two years rigorous imprisonment was awarded to him under Section 447, Indian Penal Code and similarly two years rigorous imprisonment was awarded to him under Section 148, Indian Penal Code. According to the respondents, the Haryana Chief Minister at the time of his visit to the Jail on 2511988 had directed the consideration of the petitioner''s case for premature release. Accordingly the case was sent to the Inspector General of Prisons but he has informed vide his communication dated 741988 that he (petitioner) may not be released prematurely keeping in view the heinous nature of crime committed by him. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had, vide its decision, dated 941991 in Criminal Misc. No. 1582 M of 1991, copy Annexure P3, directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for premature release observing that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the petitioner''s prayer only on the ground of heinousness of the crime and, therefore, directed the respondents to reconsider the case within three months without taking into account the he inousness of the crime. The respondents thereafter have again considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the direction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The case was put up before the State Level Committee set up by the Government for Consideration of premature release cases of life convicts. The Committee after considering all aspects of the matter and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case deferred his case for one year.

The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of submissions conceded that he respondents have not issued any policy instruction that a convict in a case, as the instant one, has, any absolute right to be released prematurely. He however, relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and others, 1979 (2) Labour Law Journal 217. In that case, the apex Court had considered the constitutional obligations of the State when it takes action in exercise of statutory or executive power. The question posed was whether the State is entitled to act in any manner it liked in dealing with its property or in awarding a contract to any person it chooses without any constitutional limitations upon it and further as to what are the parameters of its statutory or executive power in the matter of awarding a contract or dealing with its property ? In that case, the Court had, inter alia, hold that the action of the 1st respondent in accepting the tender of the 4th respondents, even though they did not satisfy the prescribed condition of eligibility, was clearly "discriminatory, since it excluded other persons similarly situate from tendering for the contract and it was also arbitrary and without reason and, therefore, held that the person aggrieved by exclusion is entitled to challenge the arbitrary action by means of writ petition. Apparently, this was a case dealing with the statutory or executive power of the State in the context of accepting or rejecting tenders, which is a matter, of Civil nature and does not apply in the present case. Hence the petitioner cannot seek any assistance from this Court in support of his claim.

The counsel for the petitioner then relied on the judgment of this Court in Shri Sampuran Singh Sandhu, Advocate v. The State of Punjab and others, 1975 All India Services Law Journal 252. This was a case dealing with the question of reservation of seats for demobilized Indian Armed Forces personnels. The respondents before the Court had contended that the reservation of seats for the demobilized Indian Armed Forces personnels is a concession accorded to this class by the Government and that a concession cannot be claimed as a matter of right. This argument was held to be devoid of any force by, this Court. It was observed that Article 6 of the Constitution enjoins on the State to afford equality of opportunity in matters relating to service to all the citizens. If the petitioner belongs to class to which some benefits have been by the State, nonconsideration of his case for the receipt of these benefits would be hit by Article 16 of the Constitution. This judgment is also inapplicable to the facts of the instant case, for the petitioner has not quoted any instance if any other similarly placed convict has been prematurely released by the respondent. Had it been so, he could put forward a claim that he is being discriminated or denied equality of. opportunity in the matter of premature release but such is not the case before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner then cited three judgments of this Court on which he placed reliance in support of his contention that the petitoiner is entitled to his release prematurely. In Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 238 (P&H) : 1989(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 53 , the Court was considering the prayer for premature release of a life convi on the basis of the guidelines laid down by the State Government in paragraph 516B of the Punjab Jail Manual and had directed the release of the petitioner prematurely. Similarly in Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports 691 : 1989(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 606 , the prayer for premature release of the petitioner before the Court was allowed on the basis of the policy guidelines laid down by the State Government. Again in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana and another, 1989 (2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 290, this Court had allowed the prayer of the petitoner before the Court for premature release on the basis of the provisons contained in paragraph 516 of the Punjab Jail Manual contain guidelines for premature release. It will thus appear that in all the three cases, viz, Mithu Singh''s case (supra), Mohan Singh''s case (supra) and Dalbir Singh''s case (supra), the convicts relating to Punjab State) had been allowed premature release on the basis of the policy guidelines contained in the Punjab Jail Manual. None of these cases can be said to have any bearing on the facts of the case under consideration before this Court.

As already observed, the learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that the petitioner is not seeking his premature release on the basis of any policy instructions or guidelines contained in the Haryana Jail Manual. His only plea is that his case had been ordered to be considered by the Chief Minister, Haryana, on his visit to the Jail in 1988 and he is entitled to be considered for premature release. It is apparent that the Chief Minister, Haryana, had merely directed for the consideration of the petitioner''s case for premature release but did not pass any order that he should be released prematurely. The respondents had, thereupon, considered his case and had found that the petitioner did not deserve to be released prematurely. The petitioner is required to undergo imprisonment for whole life unless the State Government reduces or remits the remaining portion of his sentence in exercise of its power under Section 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code but no such order has been passed by the State Government in petitioner''s favour. The State Government has complied with the direction of this Court as contained in Annexure P3 and has deferred his case for consideration of his prayer for premature release for one year as stated in the petition. No fault can be found with this order of the respondents. Hence this petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.