The main legal point established is that the classification of crimes for the purpose of pre-mature release must be followed by the State Government, and the nature of the crime should be accurately considered.

H.S.Bedi, J.

1. The petitioner was arrested on 27.8.1981 and convicted on 4.5.1982 for having murdered his father Bhag Singh. On the completion of the requisite period of imprisonment he moved an application for pre-mature release but as no decision was being taken thereon, came to this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 12488-M of 1990 and while disposing of the said application on 21.12.1990 vide Annexure R-1, this Court directed that the case of the petitioner for premature release was to be considered within four months. The case was accordingly considered but vide order dated 24.7.1991 was deferred for a period of one year. The matter was reconsidered after the lapse of one year and vide Annexure P-2 dated 6.8.1992 rejected on the ground that it would be reconsidered after a lapse of another year. Annexure P-2 was challenged in this Court through Crl. Misc. No. 8773-M of 1993 and vide orders dated 12.10.1993 this Court once again directed that the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release be decided within two months from that date. The State Government thereafter rejected the case of the petitioner vide Annexure P-3 dated 3.1.1994 holding that as the crime committed by the petitioner was a henious one it fell within para 2(a) of the Annexure R-4 dated 4.2.1993 and that being so his case for pre mature release was liable to be considered only after he had put in 14 years of actual imprisonment which admittedly the petitioner had not undergone.

2. In response to notice in the petition, a reply has been filed on behalf of the State Government and the order Annexure P-3 is sought to be justified by averting that as the petitioner had killed his father over a petty quarrel, this was a heinous crime and as the petitioner has not put in 14 years of actual imprisonment, he is not entitled to be released pre-maturely.

3. Mr. Ganeriwala, learned counsel for the petitioner, has averred that the case of the petitioner was deferred twice earlier for a period of one year and it was never the case of the State Government at that stage that the petitioner was not entitled to be released as his case was covered under paragraph 2(a) of Annexure R-4 and it was for the first time that while making Annexure P-3 this reason was incorporated. He has averred that a bare reading of paragraph 2(a) would indicate that the nature of the crime committed by the petitioner though undoubtedly very unfortunate would not fall within paragraph 2(a), but would fall within paragraph 2(b) of Annexure R-4.

4. Mr. Azad Singh, learned State Counsel, however, averred that it was for the State Government alone to determine as to under which part of Annexure R-4 the case of the petitioner would fall and the State Government having decided that it fell within paragraph 2(a), the petitioner was not entitled to be released.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that this petition deserves to succeed. I have gone through Annexure P-4 with the help of P.3 learned counsel for the parties and find that the case of the petitioner falls squarely within paragraph 2(b) of Annexure R-4. It can hardly be doubted that in every murder there is an element of brutality and murder in itself is a heinous crime but if the State Government itself has chosen to classify murder in different ways for the purpose of premature release, it is bound by its instructions and they must be followed. It will be seen that paragraph 2(a) deals with a situation where the murder is motivated by lust, greed or avarice, that are the cases of human instincts, or where it has been exceptionally brutal in its execution. A reading of Annexure P-3 would indicate that the incident took place on a petty but sudden quarrel between a father and son and as such fell in paragraph 2(b).

6. In view of the above, Annexure P-3 is quashed and respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above within a period of three months failing whic