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

1994 Supreme(MP) 540

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
U. L. BHAT, A. S. TRIPATHI, T. S. DOABIA
GANGACHARAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
M. P. 804 Of 1991
Decided On : 07/13/1994

Advocates Appeared:
J.P.Gupta, P.L.DUBEY

The term 'antecedents' in Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954, encompasses the entire period preceding imprisonment, including conduct before and after the crime, as well as the circumstances of the crime.

Headnote:

PRISONERS' RELEASE ON PROBATION ACT - SECTION 2 - INTERPRETATION - 'ANTECEDENTS' AND 'CONDUCT IN PRISON' - SCOPE AND MEANING - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, convicted of serious offenses including murder, applied for release on license under the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954. The State Government rejected their applications based on the Probation Board's recommendation, considering only their antecedents prior to the crime and conduct in prison.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the word 'antecedents' in Section 2 of the Act encompasses the entire period preceding imprisonment, including the circumstances of the crime, conduct subsequent to the crime, and conduct in prison. The Court emphasized the importance of considering all aspects of the prisoner's background and behavior in determining their likelihood to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life upon release.

Issues: 1. Whether 'antecedents' under Section 2 of the Act is limited to the period prior to the commission of the crime or includes subsequent conduct and circumstances of the crime. 2. Whether the State Government properly considered the petitioners' applications for release on license.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted 'antecedents' in Section 2 broadly to include the entire period preceding imprisonment, encompassing conduct before and after the crime, as well as the circumstances of the crime. This interpretation aligns with the reformatory aspect of penology underlying the Act and the need to assess the prisoner's overall likelihood of rehabilitation. 2. The Court found that the State Government failed to independently consider the petitioners' applications and merely relied on the Probation Board's recommendation. The Court directed the State Government to reconsider the applications in accordance with the Act and the Court's interpretation of 'antecedents'.

Final Decision: The Court directed the State Government to reconsider the petitioners' applications for release on license within three months, taking into account all aspects of their antecedents and conduct, as interpreted by the Court.

U. L. BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners herein have been convicted for offences including the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They submitted applications through the Superinten dent, Central Jail, Gwalior, praying for release on licence under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954, for short, the 'act' and Rule 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1964, for short, the 'rules'. The State Government re jected the applications on consideration of the views of the Probation Board which acted on the recommendation of the District Magistrate. The respective orders of the State Government are under challenge in these cases.

( 2 ) IN Misc. Civil Case No. 47 of 1988 (State v. Chandersingh) of the Indore Bench of the High Court, the Court took the view that an application for release has to be disposed of on consideration of the applicants' antecedents only prior to the commission of the crime which led to the convic tion and conduct in the prison and that the nature and character of the crime and the conduct of the applicant after the commission of the crime till he entered the prison are not be taken into consider ation. The Division Bench which heard the present petitions doubted the correctness of the view taken in Chander Singh's case and referred the questions involved to a Larger Bench. Since the answer to the questions would necessarily lead to disposal of the writ petitions, we propose to deal with the questions and also dispose of the writ petitions.

( 3 ) THE Act has been enacted to provide for the release on license of certain prisoners on condi tions imposed by the Government. An order for release on license can be passed if it appears to the Government from his"antecedents and his con duct in the prison that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life, if he is released from prison" and subject to the stipulated condi tions regarding supervision. Same edition of the Act contains the word"antecedent" instead of"antecedents". The official Hindi text refers to"shasan Ko Uske Purva Vritta Aur Bandi Griha Men Uske Acharan Se". This would clearly indi cate that"antecedents" is the word used in Section 2. Section 3 provides that the licence is to be in force until the date on which the person released would, in the execution of the order of warrant authorising his imprisonment, have been dis charged from prison but for his release or until the licence is revoked, whichever is earlier. Ac cording to Section 4, the period of release on licence is to be reckoned as part of period of imprisonment for the purpose of computing the amount of remission of sentence which might be awarded to him under remission rules. Under Section 6, Government has power to revoke the licence at any time for reasons to be recorded in writing after giving opportunity to the person concerned to present his case before the District Magistrate. Section 7 renders punishable escape from supervision by the released absconder. Section 9 confers on the Government power to make rules consistent with the Act. Reformatory aspect of penology is the basis of the statute. The statute serves public interest and the interest of the prisoners and their families.

( 4 ) RULE 4 of the Rules deals with eligibility for release. Any prisoner other than one specified in Rule 3 who has served one-third of his sentence of imprisonment or a total period of five years without remission, whichever is less, may be released by the Government of licence. Rule 6 deals with procedure. An application for release has to be made in Form A to the Superintendent. The Superintendent has to examine the applica tion to see whether it is duly filled up and if it is in order, he shall entertain and register it. Ineligi bility leads to rejection of the application. If he is found eligible, the Superintendent has to fill in the columns in the application meant to be fill













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