KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.

Present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the impugned order dated 16.11.2011, Annexure P-8, passed by the Government of Haryana be quashed and the petitioner be held entitled to release under the Good Conduct Prisoners' Probational Release Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Probational Release Act’ or ‘the Act’) read with the Good Conduct Prisoners' Probational Release Rules, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rules’).

The petitioner, along with his co-accused, was tried in a case arising out of FIR No.337 dated 24.5.1994, registered at Police Station City Panipat, under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. Others were acquitted, but the petitioner was found guilty of these offences and was convicted and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC (dowry death) and two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 498-A IPC vide judgment and order dated 19th/21st October, 1995. The petitioner filed an appeal before this Court bearing Criminal Appeal No.687-SB of 1995 challenging conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. It was dismissed vide judgment (Annexure P-2) dated 15th May, 2009. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed SLP but the same was also dismissed and the judgments passed by the trial Court as well as of this Court were upheld vide order dated 3rd May, 2010. The petitioner, as of now, has undergone sentence of 4 years 3 months and 14 days, which includes 6 months remissions granted under Section 432 Cr.P.C., out of the awarded sentence of 10 years. Thereafter, on readmission in jail with effect from 2nd April, 2010, the petitioner made a request/notice (Annexure P-5/A) to the authorities for his conditional release from jail under the Act and the Rules. It has been rejected vide order at Annexure P-8, impugned herein.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the records. The two questions, which arise for adjudication in the present case, can be formulated as under:

First, whether the petitioner is entitled to release under the Probational Release Act in the year 2012 when the Act itself has been repealed by State of Haryana in the year 2001?

Secondly, whether the petitioner who has been convicted for an offence under Section 304-B IPC is entitled to release under the provisions of the Probational Release Act and the rules framed thereunder?

Question No.1

The first issue which arises for the consideration in the instant case is whether the petitioner can seek his release in the year 2012 under the provisions of the Probational Release Act which has been repealed by the State of Haryana in the year 2001 by enacting Good Conduct Prisoners' Probational Release (Repeal) Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Repeal Act’). A perusal of the petition would reveal that it is the categoric stance of the State that they have no infrastructure or manpower to implement the provisions of the Probational Release Act as pursuant to its repeal the entire infrastructure has been disbanded by them. Further, State of Haryana abolished the office of Reclamation Officer/Probation Officer, who are supposed to implement the provisions of the Act, way back in the year 1976. It is thus the case of State that they cannot release the petitioner after invoking provisions of the Probational Release Act which stands repealed. In this regard, reference can be made to Annexure P-6 attached with the petition which reflects the stance of State of Haryana.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the decisions rendered by this Court. He has also drawn my attention to the order passed by this Court in a petition filed by the petitioner titled as ‘Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others’ CRWP No. 1104 of 2011, decided on J