SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(All) 949

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G.P.Mathur, S.K.Jain
MIRZA MOHAMMAD HUSAYN
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 27 September 2001
Criminal M. W. P. No. 5039 of 2000

Advocates Appeared:
D.R.Chaudhary, Dheeraj Singh, H.N.SHARMA,

The court emphasized the importance of punishment in deterring crime and protecting society, and held that the power of pardon under Article 161 cannot be exercised in a manner that negates the constitutional division of powers.

Headnote:

A gruesome incident took place in a village resulting in 11 deaths and several injuries. The accused were convicted and sentenced, and appeals were made to higher courts. The Government issued orders for premature release of prisoners, which were challenged in a writ petition. The court found the orders to be arbitrary and void, as they drastically reduced the punishment imposed by the courts. The court emphasized the importance of punishment in deterring crime and protecting society. It also highlighted the legal effect of a sentence of 'imprisonment for life' and the legislative intent behind Section 433-A Cr. P. C. The court held that the power of pardon under Article 161 cannot be exercised in a manner that negates the constitutional division of powers. It also noted the unfairness and discrimination in the orders, as well as the difficulty in accurately assessing the age of prisoners. The court quashed the Government Orders and directed the State to take all released prisoners back into custody to serve their sentences.

G. P. MATHUR, J.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing of the Government Orders dated 11-1-2000 and 25-1-2000 by which general directions were issued for premature release of prisoners who had undergone a very small portion of sentence imposed upon them.

2. A gruesome incident took place in the afternoon of 1-2-1989 in village Sakhni within the limits of police station Jahangirabad in the District of Bulandshahr in which 11 persons were killed and some others including a police constable on duty were injured. The accused restored to indiscriminate firing upon the victims when they were performing the burial of a lady in the family graveyard. In all 21 accused were put up for trial. The Sessions Judge acquitted 4 and convicted and sentenced 6 accused to death and remaining 11 to imprisonment for life besides some shorter terms of imprisonment for other offences. Appeals were preferred by the accused and also by the State before the High Court which acquitted 2 accused and affirmed the conviction of the remaining 15. Except for one accused, the death sentence of the remaining was altered to imprisonment for life. The accused and also the State preferred appeals to the Supreme Court, which were dismissed on 4-5-1995 with the modification that the sentence of death awarded to one accused was altered to imprisonment for life. The respondents No. 7 to 19 who were convicted in the aforesaid case undergoing sentences awarded to them and were confined in Central Jail, Agra. A Government Order was issued on 11-1-2000 providing for premature release of various categories of prisoners, which was partly modified by another Order dated 25-1-2000. The respondents No. 17 to 19 were then released from Jail on the basis of the aforesaid Government Order. Mirza Mohammad Husain, who is the complainant and had lodged the F. I. R. of the incident has filed the present writ petition for quashing of the Government Orders and for a direction to the State of U. P. not to release respondents N2o. 7 to 17 from Jail on their basis.

3. The subject of the Government Order is "premature Release of Prisoners on the occasion of Republic Day-2000. It recites that the Governor of U. P. has granted sanction for premature release of prisoners in the manner indic2ated in the Order. Para 1 of the Order provides for premature release of following category of prisoners:

(i) Prisoners who had undergone 20 years of sentence with remission by 26-1-2000;

(ii) Male prisoners of 60 years or above, who had been sentenced to imprisonment for life and had undergone 3 years of sentence (without remission) by 26-1-2000;

(iii) Lady prisoners of 50 years or above who had been sentenced to imprisonment for life and had undergone 3 years of sentence (without remission) by 26-1-2000:

(iv) Male prisoners of 60 years or above who had been sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment and undergone 1/3 of the sentence imposed upon them or 2 years which ever is less;

(v) Lady prisoners of 50 years or above who had been sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment and had undergone 1/3 of the sentence imposed upon them or 2 years whichever is less.

4. With regard to the prisoners coming within the purview of clause (i), it was provided that undergoing of 14 years of sentence (without remission) will be mandatory for those whose cases were covered by Section 433-A Cr. P. C. Para 4 of Government Order provides that following category of persons will not be eligible for premature release:

(i) those who had been granted bail and were not confined in jail on 26-1-2000;

(ii) foreigners;

(iii) convicted by Court martials;

(iv) under trials detenues under detention laws;

(v) convicted under Foreigners Act or Passport Act;

(vi) convicted under Sections 3 to 10 of Official Secrets Act, 1967;

(vii) convicted under Section 2 or 3 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 121 to 131 I. P. C;

(viii) convicted under Prevention of Corruption Act or Sections 167, 170, 171, 181, 191





























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top