1996 Supreme(MP) 1211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A.K. MATHUR, S.K. KULSHRESTHA, JJ.
State of M.P. - Appellant
Versus
Sandeep - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 49 of 1996 (J)
Decided On : 18-03-1996

Headnote:Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 (M.P.) – – S. 2 – – "antecedents" of prisoner – – not restricted to any period – – Board rejecting his prayer to release on licence – – view appearing justified – – Court cannot substitute its own view.

        Short Note

       1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31.1.1996 whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the Probation Board to reconsider the case of the petitioner for release on licence in the light of the observations made by this Court and the order dated 11.3.1994, passed in M.P. No. 244/94.

       2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that the respondent Sandeep undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life had filed a petition challenging the legality of the rejection of his case for release on licence under the provisions of M.P. Prisoner's Release on Probation Act, 1954. The grievance of the respondent was that in spite of the Court order dated 11.3.1994 passed in M.P. No. 244/94, irrelevant material was again taken into consideration for the rejection of his case. Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 31.1.1996 directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made by this Court in the order dated 11.3.1994 passed in M.P. No.244/94. Aggrieved against this order, the State has preferred this appeal before this Court.

       3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

       4. The respondent Sandeep is an army personnel. He is convicted for murder of his own wife. He was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sagar for the offence under section 302 IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. He is undergoing sentence. He moved an application for release on probation. The Probation Board has taken into consideration the nature of offence under section 302 of the IPC and u/s. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, letter from Col .R.C. Nanda, (Retd.), the father of the deceased Renuka, stating that the convict is a dangerous person, if he is released on probation, there will be a danger to the life of his wife and Col. Nanda himself; that he has obtained false medical certificate for the purpose of release on probation, the Probation Board has rejected the application for release filed by the respondent. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Probation Board is justified .and we cannot substitute our views for that part. As observed by the Board, the case of the respondent for release is pre – mature. This Court also considered the present case in the light of the decision in Ganga Charn v. State of M.P. (1994 JLJ 795), in which their Lordships have held –

       "9. There is no logic in restricting the sweep of the word “antecedents” to the period prior to the commission of crime A person who commits a crime may be at large for a considerable period or he might have been in judicial custody for a considerable period. It may be that conviction takes place several years after the crime. Legislative intention could not have been to ignore as irrelevant the conduct of the prisoner between the date of the crime and the date of his entry into the prison. So also, the nature and circumstances of the crime cannot be irrelevant in deciding whether a prisoner is to be released on licence. Background, setting and modus operandi of crimes could be different. A crime can be carefully premeditated and executed or it can be committed on the spur of the moment. A crime can be committed for strong motive or for insignificant or no motive. A crime may by gruesome or otherwise. It may be committed for monetary gain or for no gain. The circumstances of the crime will be helpful in throwing a flood of light on the personality of the criminal. It could not be the legislative intention to ignore these valuable clues to his personality. The decision of the government to release or not is dependent on its opinion whether the prisoner is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life. The opinion is to be based on the consideration of his antecedents and his conduct in prison. All aspects of his antecedents preceding his entry into prison – which will include antecedents prior to the crime, the circumstances of the case – conduct subsequent to crime and in prison have to be taken into consideration in the process of formation of opinion on the crucial question whether he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life. No aspect by itself may be decisive. No aspect is to be ignored. The total picture and the colours which go to make up the picture are relevant. This is implied in the words used in section 2 as well as the Hindi text of the provisions."

       5. Learned counsel for the respondent, Shri Tankha submitted that the incumbent was released on parole and he may now be released on licence.

       6. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the Probation Board which is based on relevant consideration and in the light of full bench decision in the case of Ganga Charon (supra), does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, the State Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent is dismissed.