LexLIFE CONVICT LAXMAN NASKAR versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B LIFE CONVICT LAXMAN NASKAR v. ST A TE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 4, 2000 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] Constitution of India-Article 32-West Bengal Correctional Services Act XX.XII of 1992-Section 61(1)-Life convict applying for premature C release-On basis of remissions earned-Jail authorities observing in favour of life convict-Review Committee rejecting release on different Consideration-Whether he is entitled for automatic release-Held, no-- Separate order should be made by appropriate Government-Further held, reasons given by government palpably wrong-Matter remitted to State Government fresh consideration. D The petitioner, undergoing imprisonment for life, has filed a writ petition in this Court seeking release from jail, on the ground that under Section 61(1) of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act XXXII of 1992, which came into force with effect from April 14,2000, he is entitled to be released prematurely inasmuch as he had served the sentence and earned E remissions. On an earlier petition when the matter had come up before this Court an order had been made directing the Government to re-consider the case for premature release of all life convicts who had approached the Court. Thereafter, the Government constituted a Review Committee and also issued certain guidelines as to the basis on which a convict can be released p prematurely. Though in the present case, the report of the jail authorities was in favour of the petitioner, the Review Committee constituted by the Government recommended to reject the claim of premature release of the petitioner for different reasons. G H Allowing the writ petition the Court HELD: 1. In view of the legal position explained by this Court it may not help the petit~oner even on the construction on Section 61(1) of the West Bengal Correctional Service Act XXXII of 1992 with ref~rence to explanation thereto that for the purpose of calculation of the total period of imprisonment under this Section the period of imprisonment for life shall be taken to be 62 - LIFE CONVICT LAXMAN NASKAR ''· STA TE OF WEST BENGAL 63 equivalent to the period of imprisonment for 20 years. Therefore, solely on A the basis of completion of a term in jail serving imprisonment and remissions earned under the relevant rules or law will not entitle and automatic release, but the appropriate Government must pass a separate order remitting the un- expired portion of the sentence. [66-D-E) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh, [ 1976) 3 SCC 470; Naib Singh B v. State of Punjab, [1983) 2 SCC 454 and Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, [1961) 3 SCR 440, relied on. 2. The reasons given by the Government, are palpably irrelevant or devoid of substance. Firstly, the views of the witnesses who had been examined C in the case or the persons in the locality cannot detenpine whether the petitioner would be a danger if prematurely released because the persons in the locality and the witnesses may still live in the past and their memories are being relied upon without reference to the present and the report of the jail authorities to the effect that the petitioner has reformed himself to a large extent. Secondly, by reason of one's age one cannot say whether the convict D has still the potentiality of committing the crime or not, but it depends on his attitude to matters, which is not being taken note of by the Government Lastly, the suggestion that the incident is not an individual act of crime but a sequel of the political feud affecting society at large, whether his political views have been changed or still carries the same so as to commit crime has not been E examined by the Government. (67-G-H; 68-A-B] The order made by the Government was quashed and the matter was remitted to it again to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of what has been stated earlier and the comments made in this order as to the grounds upon which the Government refused to act on the report of the jail authorities F and also to take note of the change in the 0 law by enacting the West Bengal Correctional Service Act XXXII of 1992 and to decide the matter afresh within a period of three months. [68-C-D] CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 110 of2000. CJ (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) B.S. Malik and Santosh Singh for the Petitioner. Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.