RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE GOVT OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Order of the Court was delivered by U. L. Bhat, C. J. This case has been referred to a Full Bench by Division Bench at Gwalior in view of conflict between Division Bench decisions of this Court in Ramsewak v. State of M.P., (1993) 2 MPJR 111 (FB). Bankar v. State of M.P., MP No. 2 of 1987 : (1988 MPLJ 369) and Tularam v. State of M.P., MCC No. 339 of 1990 : (1991) 2 MPWN 53. Since none ap peared for the petitioner, we heard learned Gov ernment Advocate and Shri S. L. Saxena who assisted the Court.

(2.) Petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Court, Gwalior under Sections 302, I.P.C. on 23- 2-1988 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was an under-trial prisoner from 1 -10-1985 to 9-10-1986 (one year and 8 days). Thereafter, he underwent the sentence from 23 -2-1988 till the date of filing of the petition on 19 -7-1993 (5 years, 4 months and 26 days). He earned remission of 2 years and 3 months. The total of these periods would be 8 years, 8 months and 24 days. It appears that he was on interim bail for 3 months and 3 days. According to the peti tioner, he has thus undergone sentence of 8 years, 4 months and 24 days till date of petition and eligible to be released on licence by the State Government under Rule 4 of the M. P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1954 (for short the Rules), read with Section 2 of the M.P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954 (for short the Act).

(3.) The bone of contention in this case is whether in considering the eligibility of the per son for consideration for release on licence, be sides the period of sentence actually undergone after the date of conviction, period of under-trial detention which may be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) could also be reckoned. There is no dis pute that the period of remission cannot be reck oned as the rules stand at present.