MIRZA MOHAMMAD HUSAIN Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2001-9-23
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 27,2001

Mirza Mohammad Husain Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.P.MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing of the Government Orders dated 11 -1 -2000 and 25 -1 -2000 by which general directions were issued for premature release of prisoners who had undergone a very small portion of sentence imposed upon them.
(2.) A gruesome incident took place in the afternoon of 1 -2 -1989 in village Sakhni within the limits of police station Jahangirabad in the District of Bulandshahr in which 11 persons were killed and some others including a police constable on duty were injured. The accused restored to indiscriminate firing upon the victims when they were performing the burial of a lady in the family graveyard. In all 21 accused were put up for trial. The Sessions Judge acquitted 4 and convicted and sentenced 6 accused to death and remaining 11 to imprisonment for life besides some shorter terms of imprisonment for other offences. Appeals were preferred by the accused and also by the State before the High Court which acquitted 2 accused and affirmed the conviction of the remaining 15. Except for one accused, the death sentence of the remaining was altered to imprisonment for life. The accused and also the State preferred appeals to the Supreme Court, which were dismissed on 4 -5 -1995 with the modification that the sentence of death awarded to one accused was altered to imprisonment for life. The respondents No. 7 to 19 who were convicted in the aforesaid case undergoing sentences awarded to them and were confined in Central Jail, Agra. A Government Order was issued on 11 -1 -2000 providing for premature release of various categories of prisoners, which was partly modified by another Order dated 25 -1 -2000. The respondents No. 17 to 19 were then released from Jail on the basis of the aforesaid Government Order. Mirza Mohammad Husain, who is the complainant and had lodged the F.I.R. of the incident has filed the present writ petition for quashing of the Government Orders and for a direction to the State of U.P. not to release respondents N2o. 7 to 17 from Jail on their basis. The subject of the Government Order is “Premature Release of Prisoners on the occasion of Republic Day -2000. It recites that the Governor of U.P. has granted sanction for premature release of prisoners in the manner indic2ated in the Order. Para 1 of the Order provides for premature release of following category of prisoners: (i) Prisoners who had undergone 20 years of sentence with remission by 26 -1 -2000; (ii) Male prisoners of 60 years or above, who had been sentenced to imprisonment for life and had undergone 3 years of sentence (without remission) by 26 -1 -2000; (iii) Lady prisoners of 50 years or above who had been sentenced to imprisonment for life and had undergone 3 years of sentence (without remission) by 26 -1 -2000: (iv) Male prisoners of 60 years or above who had been sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment and undergone 1/3 of the sentence imposed upon them or 2 years which ever is less; (v) Lady prisoners of 50 years or above who had been sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment and had undergone 1/3 of the sentence imposed upon them or 2 years whichever is less.
(3.) WITH regard to the prisoners coming within the purview of clause (i), it was provided that undergoing of 14 years of sentence (without remission) will be mandatory for those whose cases were covered by Section 433 -A Cr. P.C. Para 4 of Government Order provides that following category of persons will not be eligible for premature release: (i) those who had been granted bail and were not confined in jail on 26 -1 -2000; (ii) foreigners; (iii) convicted by Court martials; (iv) under trials detenues under detention laws; (v) convicted under Foreigner's Act or Passport Act; (vi) convicted under Sections 3 to 10 of Official Secrets Act, 1967; (vii) convicted under Section 2 or 3 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 121 to 131 I.P.C; (viii) convicted under Prevention of Corruption Act or Sections 167, 170, 171, 181, 191 to 197, 210, 216 -A, 216 -B and 219 I.P.C; (ix) convicted under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act; (x) convicted for outranging the modesty of a woman. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.