http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: LITE CONVICT ARIM DEY @ CHINA BAGHA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/02/2000

BENCH: G.T.  Nanavali, S.  N.  Phukan

JUDGMENT:

J V D G M E N T PHVKAN, J.

     By  this common judgment we propose to dispose of  six writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution as the points involved in all the petitions are common.

     Writ  petitions  have  been filed on behalf  of  "life convicts"  as  their  prayer   tor  pre-mature  release  was rejected  by  the  Government of West  Bengal.   The  common grievance  is  that though they are entitled for  pre-mature release  under relevant rules, their prayer was rejected  by the Government on extraneous consideration.

     It  is  settled position of law that life sentence  is nothing  less  than  lifelong imprisonment  and  by  earning remissions  a  life convict does not acquire a right  to  be released  prematurely;  but if the Government has framed any rule  or  made a scheme for early release of  such  convicts then  those  rules  or schemes will have to  be  treated  as guidelines for exercising its power under Article 161 of the Constitution and if

     according  to  the  Government  policy/insructions  in force  at  therelevant  time the life  convict  has  already undergone  the  sentence  for the period  mentioned  in  the -poliey/instructions,  then  the  onlv rightt which  a  life convict  can  be said to have acquired is The right to  have his case put up by the prison authorities in time belore the authorities  concerned  considering exercise of power  under Article  161  of  the Constitutlon.  When  an  authority  is called  upon to exercise its powers under Article 161 of the Constitution that will have to be done consistently with the legal  position  and   the  .Government  policy/instructions prevalent at that time.  _

     ;   Sub-rules (4) ^ (29) of Rub 591 of the West Bengal Rules  relating to premature release of life .convict run as follows:

     "’(4)  ""In  considering  the   cases  of   prisoilers submitted  to  it  under sub«rutes(i) and  (2).          the  State Government   shall   take  mto   consideration  -  (1)   the circumstances  m  each  case.   (n)  the  character  of  the coirnct^  crime,  (iii)  his conduct inprison and  (iv)  the probabuityofhisrevertmg.tocnmmalhabits  -.   or  instigating others to commit crime, ^lfthe State Government is satisfied

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

that  the prisoner can be released wilhout any danger to the society  or  to  the public it may take steps for  issue  of orders  for  his  release under section 401 of the  Code  of criminal Procedure.  1898"

     "(29)  -  Every case in which a convict, who  has  not received  the  benefit of any of the foregoing  rulea..   is about  to  complete  a  period  of  20  years  of  continued detention.   including  remission earned, if any.  shall  be submitted  three  months  before   such  completion  by  thc Superintendent  of the Jail  .  in which the convict is lor the  time being detained, hrough the Inspector-General,  for orders  of  the  State  Government, if  the  convict’s  jail records  during, the last three years of his detentions  are found  to be satisfactory the State Government may remit the remainder of his sentence." -

     All  the  "lite  convicts" before us  have  ’completed continued detention of 20 years including remission earned.

     From  the  counter filed by tlie State, we find  thatt the Government lias also framed guidelines for this purpose. To  consider  the prayer for premature release of the  "life convicts",  police  report was called for on  the  following points:-  .  i) Whether the offence is an individual act  of crime without affecting the society at large;

     ii)  Whether here .is any chance of future  recurrence of committing crimes ’.

     iii)  Whether thie convict has lost hiss  potentiality in  committing  crime.   iv) Whether there is  any  fruitful purpose of confining this convict anv more:

     v) Socio-economic condition of rise convict’s family.

     Though  the  police  report did not cover ail  the  3. above   points.   t’ne.   prayer  of  "life  convicts"   for premature  release  was  rejected  numjy on  the  ground  of objections by police, The police had only reported about the chances  of  the  ptitioiiers committing  crime  again.   It becomes apparent from the record that the Government did not consider  the prayer for premature release as per the rules. The  Government  did  not pay sufficient  attention  to  the conduct-record  of the petitioners while in jail nor did  it consider  whether  they  had   lost  their  potentiality  in committing  crime.  The relevant aspect, namely, that  there is  nofruitful  purpose in confining them any more was  also not  considered  nor  the socio economic conditions  of  the convict’s  family were taken into account.  Thus the  orders of  the Government suffer from infirmities and are liable to be quashed.

     In  the  result,  we set aside all the orders  of  the State  Government and direct the authorities to  re-consider the  cases fo rpremature release of all "life convicts"  who have approached us by filing present Writ

     Petitions  as  per relevant rules/guidelines within  a period of one monh from the receipt of this order.

     The  Writ Petitions arc allowed to the extem  mdicated above.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3