Crl. W.P. No. 11 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W.P. No. 11 of 2008 Date of Decision : May 29, 2008. Anil Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Bhutani, AAG, Haryana. * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Anil Kumar has filed the instant criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking premature release. The petitioner is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.04.1995 (Annexure P-1) of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. The plea of the petitioner is that the petitioner fulfills all conditions of the policy guidelines dated 04.02.1993 (Annexure P-2) of the State Government for premature release, but inspite thereof, the petitioner is Crl. W.P. No. 11 of 2008 2 not being released. Details of remissions earned by the petitioner, filed today in Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are taken on record. Copy given to the opposite counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to Clause (a) of paragraph 2 of the policy guidelines (Annexure P-2), the petitioner became entitled to premature release on completion of 14 years actual sentence including under-trial period and after earning at least six years' remission. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that according to preliminary objection no.3 of the reply of respondents, the petitioner had undergone actual sentence of 14 years, 11 months and 25 days and the petitioner had earned 06 years, 06 months and 04 days of remission, but the respondents have counted the remission to be for 05 years only and therefore, the petitioner is being denied the benefit of premature release. Learned State counsel contends that according to para 645 of the Jail Manual, the total remission awarded to a person under the rules of Jail Manual, shall not exceed 1/4th part of his sentence and taking the sentence of life imprisonment to be imprisonment for 20 years, remission earned by the petitioner has been taken to be 05 years, being 1/4th of sentence. The contention, although apparently attractive, is in fact fallacious and devoid of any substance. For proper appreciation, para 645 of the Jail Manual is reproduced hereunder :- “Para 645 – Total remission not to exceed one- fourth part of sentence. - The total remission awarded to a prisoner under all these rules shall not without the special sanction of the Local Government, exceed one-fourth part of his Crl. W.P. No. 11 of 2008 3 sentence : Provided in Every exceptional and suitable cases the Inspector-General of Prisons may grant remission amounting to not more than one-third of the total sentence.” A bare reading of the aforesaid para 645 of the Jail Manual reveals that there are two exceptions to the provision of the remission not exceeding one-fourth of the sentence. The first exception relates to the remission granted by the Local Government. Para 645 lays down that total remission shall not, without special sanction of the Local Government, exceed one-fourth part of the sentence. It would show that with sanction of the Local Government, the remission can exceed one-fourth part of the sentence. In the instant case, as per details of remission furnished by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has earned Government remissions for 01 year and 07 months, which would fall under the aforesaid exception. Second exception to the rule is provided by the proviso, which lays down that Inspector General of regions may grant remission amounting to not more than one-third of the total sentence. The petitioner has earned remissions for 11 months as granted by the Director General/Inspector General of Prisons. This period also falls under the aforesaid exception and can be taken into consideration, even if the total remission exceeds one- fourth part of the sentence. Learned State counsel is unable to controvert the aforesaid position in any manner. It is, thus, apparent that the entire remissions of 06 years, 06 months and 04 days earned by the petitioner have to be taken into consideration for determining his entitlement to premature release. The matter may also be examined from another angle. If contention of learned State counsel that the remission, in no case, can exceed one-fourth part of the sentence i.e. five years in the case of life Crl. W.P. No. 11 of 2008 4 convict as in the instant case, is to be accepted, then in that event, clause (a) of paragraph 2 of the policy guidelines (Annexure P-2) would become unworkable. It lays down that the life convict should have earned at least six years' remission before becoming entitled to premature release. If the remission can, in no circumstances, exceed five years, as contended by learned State counsel, then a life convict can not earn remission for six years to avail of the benefit of Clause (a) of paragraph 2 of the policy guidelines (Annexure P-2). It is, thus, apparent that in certain circumstances, remission can exceed five years and the said circumstances are provided in para 645 of the Jail Manual itself, as already noticed in the preceding paragraphs. It is not in dispute that if the remissions earned by the petitioner are taken to be exceeding six years, the petitioner has become entitled to premature release. The petitioner has admittedly earned remissions for 06 years, 06 months and 04 days and the said entire period has to be taken into consideration for determining the entitlement of the petitioner for premature release, in view of the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to premature release in accordance with the policy guidelines of Government (Annexure P-2). In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is allowed and the respondents are commanded to release the petitioner immediately, if not required in any other case. May 29, 2008 ( L.N.MITTAL ) monika JUDGE