LexSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus BALWAN ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. A v. BALWANETC. SEPTEMl3ER 2, 1999 (G.T. NANA VA TI AND S.N. PHUKAN JJ.] B Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 432 433 and 433A--L:ife Convict-Pre-Mature rel~ase of-Remission does not vest right to be released prematurely-Rule or Scheme made by the Government for early release of life convict to be treated as guidelines for exercising of powers under Article C 161 of rhe Constitution-Government policy or instructions in force at the time of conviction not applicable-Instead the policy decision or instructions which were in force at the time the case came up for consideration will apply-Held, if life convict has already undergone the sentence for a period mentioned in the remission scheme then he has only a right to have his case D put up by the prison authorities before the Governor for considering his case under Article 161-Constitution of India-Article 161. Respondent-life convicts filed writ petitions in the High Court for their pre-mature release. The High Court held that for deciding the entitlement for pre-mature release it was relevant to consider the government policy/ E instructions in force at the time of conviction of the respondent by Trial Court and the State Government was not right in applying the subsequent policy decisions and instructions that were in force at the time when their case came up for consideration. The High Court directed the State Government to reconsider their applications. Hence these appeals. Allowing these appeals, the Court HELD : 1.1. By earning remissions a life convict does not acquire a right to be released pre-maturely. But ifthe Government has framed any rule F or made a scheme for early release of such convicts then those rules or schemes .will have to be treated as guidelines for exercising i~s power under G Article 161 of the Constitution. [214-E] 1.2 No life convict can validly claim that his case for pre-mature release should be considered according to the Government policy/instructions that were in force on the date on which he came to be convicted as he 211 H 212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A acquired a right to get remissions as declared and to be released accordingly. If according to the Government Policy/instructions in force at the relevant time the life convict has already undergone the sentence for a period mentioned in the policy decision/instructions, then the only right which he can be said to have acquired is the right to have his case put up by the prison B authorities in time before the authorities concerned for considering exercise of power under Article 161 of the Constitution. Ordinarily, when an authority is called upon to exercise its powers that will have to be done consistently with the legal position and the Government decision/instructions prevalent at that time. However, in order to see that a life convict does not lose any benefit available under the remission scheme which has to be regarded as C the guideline, it would be just and proper to direCt the State Government to treat the date on which his case is/was required to be put up before the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution as the relevant date with reference to which the cases are to be considered. (214-E-H; 215-A] Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, (1961] 3 SCR 440 and D Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1991] 1SCC107, relied on. 1.3. The State Government is directed to reconsider the applications ·of the respondents who fall under the purview of the Section 433-A Cr.P.C. in accordance with the above legal position. (215-B] E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. F G 9 of 1998 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 8.5.97 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. M. No. 4336of1997. Prem Malhotra, Rishi Malhotra, Jasbir Malik, (P. Panneswaran, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Bhal Singh Malik, Ashok Kumar Singh, Manoj Swarup) (NP), S. Murlidhar, Ms. Neeru Vaid K.K. Mohan, Rao Ranjit and Ms. K. Sarada Devi for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G. T. NANA V ATI, J. These appeals arise out of the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in writ partitions filed by "life convicts" for their pre-mature release. The High Court held that for deciding their entitlement for pre-mature release what was relevant to consider was the Government H policy/instructions in force at the tinte of their conviction by the Trial
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.