Jail offences, for which the convict has already been punished, cannot be considered in the decision for premature release.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. Petitioner Subhash who is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Ambala, has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for his premature release.

2. According to the petitioner, as on 15.7.1994, he has undergone 12 years 10 months actual sentence and also earned 1 year 10 months and 29 days remission apart from the period he was temporarily released on parole.

3. The case of the petitioner for premature release has been rejected on the ground that during confinement in jail, the petitioner has committed 19 jail offences in different jails for which he has been duly punished by the competent authority. Thus, according to the respondent, premature release case of the petitioner falls under para 2(a) of the latest Government instructions dated 4.2.1993 and the petitioner will be eligible for his premature only after completion of 14 years actual sentence including the under trial period and after earning 6 years remissions.

4. It has been held in Lila Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) RCR 28 that reasoning given in the order declining premature release to the petitioner-convict that he had committed jail offences and his release will prove hazardous to peace and tranquility in the locality are no legal reasons to decline premature release. The reasoning was on the basis that the convict has already undergone imprisonment for committing jail offences and there is no material to hold that his release is likely to prove hazardous to peace and tranquility in the locality. Thus, it was held that the jail offences committed by the convict for which he has already been punished, cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the case of the petitioner for his premature release.

5. Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has not been able to cite any judgment taking view contrary to the aforesaid judgment.

6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. In consequence thereof, the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his premature release without taking into consideration the jail offences for which he has already been punished.

7. This petition stands disposed of.