Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
LITE CONVICT ARIM DEY @ CHINA BAGHA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/02/2000
BENCH:
G.T. Nanavali, S. N. Phukan
JUDGMENT:
J V D G M E N T
PHVKAN, J.
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
By this common judgment we propose to dispose of six
writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution as
the points involved in all the petitions are common.
Writ petitions have been filed on behalf of "life
convicts" as their prayer tor pre-mature release was
rejected by the Government of West Bengal. The common
grievance is that though they are entitled for pre-mature
release under relevant rules, their prayer was rejected by
the Government on extraneous consideration.
It is settled position of law that life sentence is
nothing less than lifelong imprisonment and by earning
remissions a life convict does not acquire a right to be
released prematurely; but if the Government has framed any
rule or made a scheme for early release of such convicts
then those rules or schemes will have to be treated as
guidelines for exercising its power under Article 161 of the
Constitution and if
according to the Government policy/insructions in
force at therelevant time the life convict has already
undergone the sentence for the period mentioned in the
-poliey/instructions, then the onlv rightt which a life
convict can be said to have acquired is The right to have
his case put up by the prison authorities in time belore the
authorities concerned considering exercise of power under
Article 161 of the Constitutlon. When an authority is
called upon to exercise its powers under Article 161 of the
Constitution that will have to be done consistently with the
legal position and the .Government policy/instructions
prevalent at that time. _
; Sub-rules (4) ^ (29) of Rub 591 of the West Bengal
Rules relating to premature release of life .convict run as
follows:
"’(4) ""In considering the cases of prisoilers
submitted to it under sub«rutes(i) and (2). the State
Government shall take mto consideration - (1) the
circumstances m each case. (n) the character of the
coirnct^ crime, (iii) his conduct inprison and (iv) the
probabuityofhisrevertmg.tocnmmalhabits -. or instigating
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
others to commit crime, ^lfthe State Government is satisfied
that the prisoner can be released wilhout any danger to the
society or to the public it may take steps for issue of
orders for his release under section 401 of the Code of
criminal Procedure. 1898"
"(29) - Every case in which a convict, who has not
received the benefit of any of the foregoing rulea.. is
about to complete a period of 20 years of continued
detention. including remission earned, if any. shall be
submitted three months before such completion by thc
Superintendent of the Jail . in which the convict is lor
the time being detained, hrough the Inspector-General, for
orders of the State Government, if the convict’s jail
records during, the last three years of his detentions are
found to be satisfactory the State Government may remit the
remainder of his sentence." -
All the "lite convicts" before us have ’completed
continued detention of 20 years including remission earned.
From the counter filed by tlie State, we find thatt
the Government lias also framed guidelines for this purpose.
To consider the prayer for premature release of the "life
convicts", police report was called for on the following
points:- . i) Whether the offence is an individual act of
crime without affecting the society at large;
ii) Whether here .is any chance of future recurrence
of committing crimes ’.
iii) Whether thie convict has lost hiss potentiality
in committing crime. iv) Whether there is any fruitful
purpose of confining this convict anv more:
v) Socio-economic condition of rise convict’s family.
Though the police report did not cover ail the 3.
above points. t’ne. prayer of "life convicts" for
premature release was rejected numjy on the ground of
objections by police, The police had only reported about the
chances of the ptitioiiers committing crime again. It
becomes apparent from the record that the Government did not
consider the prayer for premature release as per the rules.
The Government did not pay sufficient attention to the
conduct-record of the petitioners while in jail nor did it
consider whether they had lost their potentiality in
committing crime. The relevant aspect, namely, that there
is nofruitful purpose in confining them any more was also
not considered nor the socio economic conditions of the
convict’s family were taken into account. Thus the orders
of the Government suffer from infirmities and are liable to
be quashed.
In the result, we set aside all the orders of the
State Government and direct the authorities to re-consider
the cases fo rpremature release of all "life convicts" who
have approached us by filing present Writ Petitions as per
relevant rules/guidelines within a period of one monh from
the receipt of this order.
The Writ Petitions arc allowed to the extem mdicated
above.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3