The manner of commission of the crime and the period of imprisonment are crucial factors in considering release on probation under the M.P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954.

ORDER
S.C. Sharma, J.

1. The Petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by an order dated 28.2.2008 passed by the State Government rejecting the application of the Petitioner preferred by him under the provisions of M.P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954.

2. The contention of the Petitioner is that he was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. vide judgment of conviction dated 7.3.1984 and a criminal appeal against the aforesaid judgment has been dismissed by this Court on 30th November, 1999. He has further stated that a S.L.P. preferred by the Petitioner before the Apex Court has also been dismissed on 5.5.2000. The Petitioner has stated that he is in jail since the year 2000 and an application was submitted by him for his release under the Provisions of M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 and the matter was recommended by Superintendent of Jail, Station House Officer, Police Station Inderganj and also by various authorities. The Petitioner's contention is that other persons in whose cases also recommendations were made, they have been released on probation, however, the Petitioner has not been released on probation and the Respondent/State has passed the impugned order which is a non-speaking order, i.e. order dated 28th February, 2008. The Petitioner has also argued before this Court that the impugned order is bad in law and in similar circumstances of this case in the case of Man Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors. (W.P. No. 5268/07 decided on 11.9.2008), this Court has quashed an identical order and the matter has been remanded back to the State Government to pass a fresh order keeping in view the Provisions of Probation Act. The Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid order.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Arvind Yadav v. Ramesh Kumar and Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 144. His contention is that the conduct of the Petitioner while he was in custody should have been looked into by the authorities while passing the impugned order. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied upon the judgment delivered by Full Bench in the case of Gangacharan Baijnath Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 1994 M.P.L.J 792. His contention is that the Respondents/State has only considered his conduct prior to his conviction and the order has not been passed in consonance with the provisions of M.P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied upon a judgment delivered in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India AIR 1990 S.C. 1984 and his contention is that in case a decision is given by an administrative authority, reasons must be recorded and the order passed by the administrative authority should be a well reasoned order. His contention is that in the present case the order passed by the Respondents is not a reasoned order. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also submitted that the wife of the Petitioner is not well and she is suffering from cancer and the impugned order dated 28th February, 2008 deserves to be quashed and the Petitioner deserves to be released on probation.

5. A reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondents/State and the contention of the Respondents/State is that that case of the Petitioner was considered on merits and a detailed speaking order has been passed vide order dated 28.2.2008 assigning the reasons for not releasing the petition on probation. The Respondents/State has relied upon the a judgment in the case of Arvind Yadav v. Ramesh Kumar and Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 144. Learned Counsel for the Respondents/State has enclosed Annexure R/2 dated 24.12.2008 which provides that for the purpose of release on probation, a convict should have undergone minimum 14 years imprisonment (actual) and as in the present case, the Petitioner has undergone only 11 years, he is certainly not entitled for release on probat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document