MATA PRASAD versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 1052 · Decided: 31-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M.M. SUNDRESH · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1052
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 1052
1052
MATA PRASAD
v.
THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 256 of 2021)
JANUARY 31, 2022
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M.M.SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Sentence / Sentencing – Remission of Sentence – Petitioner
convicted by Sessions Judge u/ss. 302, 307, 323, 34 IPC and
sentenced to life imprisonment – Appeal of petitioner pending in
High Court – Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued G.O / policy dated
01.8.2018 u/Art. 161 of the Constitution for pre-mature release of
prisoners on occasion of Republic Day every year – Petitioner filed
writ petition u/Art.32 of the Constitution – His case, that despite
having satisfied all terms and conditions for pre-mature release
under the said policy, and his proposal for release being
recommended on occasion of 26.1.2020 i.e., two years back he
had still not been released – However, counter-affidavit filed by
State pointing out that the policy for pre-mature release stood
amended on 28.7.2021 in terms of which all such convicts were
required to be considered “who have completed age of 60 years”
and have undergone custody of 20 years without remission and 25
years with remission – Held: There is great doubt on validity of the
clause in Policy of 2021 prescribing minimum age of 60 years which
would imply that a young offender of 20 years will have to serve 40
years before his case for remission can be considered – State
Government to re-examine this part of the Policy which prima-facie
does not seem to be sustainable – Further, it cannot be said that the
State Government is precluded from examining the case of the
petitioner for remission if an appeal is pending before the High
Court – Dual directions issued– one for consideration of the case
of the petitioner for remission within three months and the other for
consideration of amendment to the Policy of 2021 within four months
– Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 161 – U.P. Prisoners’ Release
on Probation Act, 1938.
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Raj Kumar @ Bittu 2021 (9)
SCC 292 – referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1053
Case Law Reference
(2021) 9 SCC 292
referred to
Para 8
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 256 of 2021.
[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]
Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Aarif Ali Khan, Rizwan Ahmad, Mujahid
Ahmad, Advs. for the petitioner.
Ardhendhumauli Kumar Prasad, AAG, Rohit K. Singh, Uday N.
Tiwary, Ms. Subhali Pathak, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
1. Admit.
2. The petitioner has taken recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution
of India for a direction for consideration of his case for premature release
from prison as per the policy dated 01.8.2018 and consequently to release
the petitioner forthwith.
3. The petitioner along with his younger brother and father were
tried for offences under Section 302/307/323/34 of the IPC and
post-trial were convicted in sentence to maximum imprisonment for life
with a judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed in Session Trial No.208 of 1999
arising from FIR No.380/1999 at P.S. Gosaiganj, Sultanpur. The petitioner
aggrieved by the said judgment filed the appeal before the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Appeal No.2247/2004. 17 years hence
the appeal is still pending adjudication.
4. The appellant on completion of 14 years of imprisonment claimed
eligibility for release under the provisions of the U.P. Prisoners’ Release
on Probation Act, 1938 and submitted the duly filled Form-A but the
same was rejected on 28.4.2017.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the Governor of Uttar Pradesh
exercising powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India issued a
G.O dated 01.8.2018, a policy for prisoners in respect of pre-mature
release on occasion of Republic Day every year. One of the categories
of such prisoners is all male convicted prisoners sentenced to suffer
life-imprisonment whose crime is not covered by any sub-rule or restricted
MATA PRASAD v. THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1054
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
category pointed out at Section 3 and who have served 16 years of
actual imprisonment without remission and 20 years of imprisonment
inclusive of remission along with the pending period. However, this petition
of the petitioner was also rejected on 04.11.2019.
6. It is the case of the petitioner, that the Government in the years
2018-2021 released 1000 of prisoners from the various jails of U.P. under
th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.