BABUPAHALWAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the Court was delivered by Faizan Uddin, J. - The order passed in this petition will also govern the disposal of M.P. No. 1903 of 1988 (Nandu Singh v. State of M.P.); M.P. No. 2161 of 1988 (Shiv Dayal v. State of M.P. and 2 others); M.P. No. 2195 of 1989 (Jaggi and Bhana v. Director General of Prisons Bhopal and 2 others) M.P. No. 2204 of 1988 (Balram v. State of M.P. and another) M.P. No. 2328 of 1988 (Shamser Singh, Kunj Bihari Singh, Prithvipal Singh and Netraj Singh v. State of M.P.) M.P. No. 2643 of 1988 (Rannu, Chunwad and Kirpal Singh v. State of M.P. and another); M.P. No. 2927 of 1988 (Ramchandar alias Kaliya v. State of M.P.); M.P. No. 2929 of 1988 (Kachroo Singh v. State of M.P. and another); M.P. No. 3383 of 1988 (Khunna v. State of M.P. and another); M.P. No. 3/89 (Semali v. State of M.P. and another); M.P. 3035 of 89 (Shiv Sahay v. State of M.P. and another) and M.P. No. 3835 of 1989 (Umashanker and Jamuna v. State of M.P. and another) as in all these petitions common question of law is involved for consideration of this Court.

(2.) The facts leading to the bunch of the petitions are not in serious dispute and the same lie in a very narrow compass. Succinctly stated, all the petitioners in all these petitions belongs to one category in the sense that all of them were convicted though by different Courts, in different Sessions trials decided on different dates; but all after 18th December, 1978 and all of them were sentenced to imprisonment for life for an offence for which death is one of the penalties provided by the Penal Code but on judicial compassion they were given only prison tenancy for life. All the petitioners are, therefore, suffering their sentences in different Jails. Some of the petitioners being eligible for consideration applied in the prescribed forms for their premature release under Rule 358 while others applied under Rule 359 of M.P. Prison Rules 1968 (For brevity 'Prison Rules') framed under S.59 of the Prisons Act, 1894 (No. 9 of 1894). Some of the petitioners applied for their release on licence under the provisions of M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 (Act No. 16 of 1954) (For brevity referred to as 'the Act') and the rules framed thereunder, known as M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1964 (For brevity referred to as 'the 1964 Rules'). The said applications of the petitioners were not disposed of by the Probation Board and the State Government within the reasonable periods and, therefore, these petitioners moved this Court under Arts.226, 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents to decide their cases within the period fixed by this Court and failing that to release the petitioners on bail.

(3.) The respondents while opposing the petitions, have taken the stand that Parliamentary amendment in the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as 'the Code') by introducing S.433-A in the Code on 18th December, 1978 made it obligatory on every person who has been convicted by any Court after 18th December, 1978, for imprisonment for life in respect of an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, as in the present cases, to serve out the actual detention in prison for full fourteen years as a mandatory minimum before he could claim his premature release under Rules 358 or 359 of the Prison Rules 1968 or release on licence under the M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 and the rules framed there under and the benefit of the said Prison Rules and 1954 Act will not be available to the petitioners unless they suffered actual incarceration for full fourteen years without remissions.