Commission of jail offences is not a legal ground to deny premature release, especially when the person has been punished for such misconduct.

Surinder Gupta, J.

1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks the direction to the respondents to consider his case for premature release as he has already undergone the requisite-period of imprisonment as per Government Instructions dated 08.07.1991 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner was awarded sentence of imprisonment for life in case bearing FIR No. 38 dated 6.5.1998 for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar vide judgment dated 30.09.2002. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment was dismissed by this Court on 01.11.2004. The petitioner has alleged that he has already undergone about fourteen yearn six months of actual sentence and with remissions more than twenty years. As per the Government Instructions dated 8th of July, 1991, he was required to undergo ten years of actual sentence and fourteen years with remissions. The petitioner filed a petition i.e. CRM-M-16270 of 2010 which was disposed of on 14.01.2011 with direction to State Government to consider his case for premature release. His case was not considered and he had to file another petition i.e. CRM-M-21945 of 2011 which was disposed of as the case of petitioner for his premature release after consideration had been rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 29.07.2011. The reason for rejection of his case for premature release was not tenable, however, as per order dated 29.07.2011, the authorities were required to reconsider the case after 2.5.2012. As the respondents have not reconsidered his case for premature release, hence, this petition.

2. In reply, the respondents have contested the petition with the plea that earlier the case of petitioner for his premature release was declined vide order dated 29.07.2011 as 2000 intoxicating tablets were recovered from him on 2.5.2007 and he was awarded punishment of loss of ten days' remission. The case of premature release of petitioner is considered if the convict had not committed any jail offence for a period of five years prior to the date of eligibility for consideration for his release as per the Government Policy of 1991.

3. The petitioner committed another prison offence for which FIR No. 133 dated 04.10.2011 for the offence punishable under Section 52A(i) of Prisons Act 1894 was registered in which he was convicted by die Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana on 19.11.2012 and awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year. The case of petitioner for his premature release can be submitted only after expiry of period of five years of the offence committed on 04.10.2011.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel and have perused the paper book with their assistance.

5. The reliance has been placed by the State on Instruction No. II of the policy Annexure P-1 for grant of remission which provides as follows:-

(II) The cases of premature release will only be considered provided the convict has maintained good conduct in jail for this purpose, good conduct means that he has-not committed any jail offence for a period of five years prior to the date of his eligibility for consideration for release as per para. 1.1 above.

6. Learned State counsel has argued that the last time, the petitioner was involved in a prison crime on 04.10.2011. Now, he is entitled for consideration of his case after 04.10.2016.

7. Learned counsel for die petitioner has argued that the commission of jail offence is no legal ground to deny the premature release. He has relied upon the observations in the case of Rai Kumar v. State of Punjab etc. (Criminal Misc. No. 55534-M of 2006, decided on December 12, 2006).

8. The petitioner has undergone actual imprisonment for about fifteen years and eight months by now. His case for premature release was last considered on 29.07.2011 but was declined with the observations as follows:-

Whereas though convict has completed the required