IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1161 of 2008 RAMCHANDRA YADAV son of Sri Kunji Lal Yadav resident of village Amha Tola Sapardaha, P.S. & District Supaul. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The principal Secretary, Department of Home, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Department of Law, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Bihar Conviction, Remission Commission, Bihar, Patna through its Member Secretary, namely, Inspector General of Prison. 5. The Inspector of Prison, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Supaul. 7. The Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Supaul. 8. The Probation Officer, Home (Prison) Department, Supaul. ----------- 6 9/4/2009 The petitioner was convicted under section 302 besides other sections of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa on 18.8.1990 in Session Case no. 24 of 1988. The petitioner suffered in jail for more than 16 years and including remission for about 22 years. The petitioner’s case is that in view of notification dated 10.12.2002 by which amendment in Section 59 of the Prison Act, 2894 was made, the respondent Inspector General of Prison called for a report from the Jail Superintendent, Supaul with regard to the prisoners who are eligible for remission vide letter dated 1.3.2007. The Superintendent of Police, Supaul submitted a report recommending the release of the petitioner on remission. The Probation Officer, Home (Prison) Department, Supaul also submitted a social and family condition report recommending for grant of - 2 - remission and release of this petitioner as also one Gajendra Yadav. The case of the petitioner is that the Bihar State Conviction Remission Commission (respondent no. 4) rejected the prayer for release of the petitioner on remission only because he had not reached the age of 60 years, although co-convict Gajendra Yadav had been released in the meeting of the Commission held earlier. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no mention in the scheme that the persons below the age of 60 years cannot be released on remission and as such the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for his release on remission is arbitrary and discriminatory because Gajendra Yadav, who was also much below the age of 60 years at that time, has been directed to be released on remission in the meeting held earlier. It is true that the Remission Commission may take into consideration the age of the convict, but in absence of approval by the government fixing the age limit, the Comnmission cannot say that merely because the petitioner is below the age of 60 years, he cannot be released on remission. The Supreme Court is of the view that life imprisonment means imprisonment till the convict is alive. However, the case of the convict can be considered for his release on remission after 14 years of actual imprisonment. It is the case of the petitioner that his case and the case of Gajendra Yadav was considered together. At that time Gajendra Yadav was only aged 45 years but he was released from the custody - 3 - although he had completed only 20 years in custody including the period of remission and the case of the petitioner was deferred for the next meeting. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has completed 22 years in custody including the period of remission but his case was rejected only because he has not completed the age of 60 years. In the circumstances, we direct the Bihar Conviction Remission Commission, Patna (respondent no. 4) to consider the case of the petitioner in the next meeting and his case shall not be rejected merely because he has not completed 60 years of age. This writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed. (J. B. Koshy, CJ.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) AMIN