JAGROOP PRASAD MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the challenge in both the writ applications relate to quashment of the Notification dated 9-8-96 with other ancillary and incidental prayers they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Sans unnecessary details the essential facts of both the applications may be stated thus :- The petitioner in W.P. No. 3948/96 was arrested on 10-10-79 for commission of an offence under Section 396, I.P.C. After conclusion of the trial he was convicted for life in S.T. No. 29/80 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satna. By the date of filing of the writ application the petitioner had earned remission of three years and seven months and had undergone actual custodial sentence of 16 years 10 months and 20 days. On 9-8-96 the State of M.P. issued a Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') granting remission of sentence on the eve of Independence Day i.e. 15-8-96 to prisoners who have been convicted by the Courts of Criminal jurisdiction of the State and are confined in the jails of the State or other States to the extent as has been specified in the Notification. In paragraph 2 of the said Notification. It has been stipulated that remission as specified in sub-paras (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) and (6) of paragraph 1 would not be granted to certain categories of prisoners. In column III (14) of the said paragraph the prisoners convicted under Ss. 120-B, 224, 384-B (dowry death) 376, 377, 395, 396 and 498-A, I.P.C., 1960 have been excluded. Because of this stipulation in the Notification the petitioner has not been granted the benefit of remission which is the cause of his grievance. In W.P. No. 441/97, the petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 376, I.P.C. in S.T. No. 275/82 and was acquitted of the offence. The State of M.P., feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, preferred an appeal forming the subject matter of Cr.A. No. No. 1023/83 and this Court partly allowed the appeal convicting the petitioner under Section 354, I.P.C. and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to undergo RI for six months. The judgment of this Court was called in question by one Madangopal Pakkad before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cr.A. No. 447/88 wherein, their Lordships allowed the appeal, convicted the petitioner under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years and fine of Rs. 25000/-, in default, further RI for six months. Though on various times the State Government has given special remissions to the prisoners who were convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and others offence the petitioner was not given the benefit. Presently the challenged is to the recent Notification as there is a denial of remission to the prisoners who have been convicted for the offences under Section 376, I.P.C. It has been putforth by the petitioner that he has completed actual sentence of more than four years and his case under Section 359 of the Jail Manual has been sent to the State Government but the same has not yet been decided.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondents in W.P. No. 441/97, in support of the Notification contending, inter alia, that the said Notification does not offend the principles enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. With regard to the release of the petitioner in W.P. No. 441/97 under Regulation 359 of the Jail Manual it is pleaded that the same has been rejected by the State Government on the basis of the recommendation of the Advisory Board.