Judgment:
Crl.
Misc.
not M-22518 of 2012 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.
Misc.
not M-22518 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision :
20. 12.2012 Major Singh ......Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Ms.Shadhan Trikha, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Anmol Grewal,A.A.G.Punjab 1.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
**** RITU BAHRI , J.
Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') praying for premature release of the petitioner in view of instructions dated 08.07.1991 being followed by State of Punjab on completing 10/14 years of total sentence by 08.12.2010 without considering the jail offence.
On notice, a reply has been filed by the Superintendent Central Jail, Amritsar stating there in that the case of premature release of the petitioner was initiated under the Government Instructions dated 08.07.1991 by respondent Crl.
Misc.
not M-22518 of 2012 (O&M) -2- No.3 vide letter No.2814 dated 16.07.2009 and 2815 dated 16.07.2009 addressed to District Magistrate, Gurdaspur.
The petitioner has committed jail offences on three different occasions i.e on 13/14.10.2008, 23/24.04.2009 and 06.10.2009 (R-2) respectively and his case has been rejected by respondent No.1 on 17.03.2009.
As per instructions dated 08.07.1991, it is mentioned in Para B (II) that “ the case of premature release will only be considered provided that 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 as per Para I.
I above.
According to the instructions (R-1).keeping in view of the jail offence committed by the petitioner, he was not found eligible for premature release.
The petitioner's case was duly recommended after he had completed 10 years of actual sentence and with remissions 14 yeaRs.He has been punished on committing 3 jail offences and his case has been rejected as he has committed three jail offences 5 years prior to the date of his eligibility.
Reference has been made to a case Lila Singh versus State of Punjab, 1988(1) RCR 2.wherein it was held that jail offences committed by the convict for which he has already been punished, cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the case for premature release.
This view has been Crl.
Misc.
not M-22518 of 2012 (O&M) -3- consistently followed by this Court in case of Subhash versus State of Haryana decided on 11.08.1994, Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab decided on 05.03.1997, Raj Kumar vs State of Punjab etc decided on 12.12.2006, Teja Singh versus State of Punjab and others decided on 23.04.2007 and Jatinder Kumar versus State of Punjab and others decided on 16.02.2012.
Learned State counsel has failed to distinguish the above said judgments The present petition is accordingly disposed of by giving a direction to the respondents to initiate the case of the petitioner for his premature release without taking into consideration the jail offences committed by him.
With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 20 12.2012 G.Arora