The High Court of Patna for the Judgement of the Petition placed to maintain A Judicial Discipline and to resolve the issue conflicting between the two Judgement
TITLE-Munna Singh VS The State OF Bihar &ors
DECIDED ON- 24/11/2023
+CR.WJC No 722/2023
CORAM- Hon’ble Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
INTRODUCTION
The petition questions the legality and validity of the decision taken by the state sentence remission Board on 9/9/2022 in respect of the petitioner.as the impugned order passed by the board has rejected the proposal for premature release of the petitioner on the ground the case covered under clause (iv)(ka) of the notification No.3106 dated on 10/12/2002 issued by the Home Department Government of Bihar and also praying for commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for premature release.
FACTS
As per the facts of the case the petitioner has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions judge -lll in sessions trial for the offence under section 364A/34 of IPC has been order to go life imprisonment with fine and also was convicted and sentenced under section 365 IPC and go rigorous imprisonment for seven years and both are sentenced to run concurrently.As per the petitioner the notification no.3106 was issued in 10/12/2002 and published the Gazette on 28/12/2002 and the respondent authorities kept following the 1984 policy.The learned counsel for petitioner state that an application was submitted before the competent authority for considering his case for premature release.The Superintendent of police as well as presiding judge of the trial court recommended the case of petitioner for premature release.After obtaining necessary recommendation from the prescribed authorities the jail superintendent sent proposal to the board for consideration of the case for petitioner premature release in sessions trial.The learned counsel submits clause (iv)(ka) of the notification 3106 dated 10/12/2002 even if applied the case of petitioner would not be covered and also state that the categories of convicts covered under section 433A of Crpc has benn amended which brought certain exception list .The Board has not at all looked into Rule of 481 of the Bihar Prison Manual 2012 and also not followed the mandate of Rule 478 of the prison manual provide the paramount consideration being the welfare of the society at large,the board shall not ordinarily decline a premature release of a prisoner as in the present case the board has not applied it’s independent mind and the judicial pronouncement which were available to the board at the time of taking the impugned order.The submission is that by virtue of the amended Rule 481 there is no scope at all for the board to bring the present case within the ambit of clause (iv)(ka) of the notification dated 10/12/2002.Whereas per the Respondent the offence of kidnapping for ranson is as heinous as the offence of rape, Dacoity, terrorist,crime and for this reason the board has rejected the proposal for premature release of the petitioner and also state that the date of conviction of the petitioner is 17/09/2008 were case would come within the purview of notification no.3106 dated 10/12/2002.
THE COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
As per the Hon’ble court after hearing both the side of learned counsel for the parties the court state that there was no scope for the board to bring any other offence within the ambit of Rule 482 of the Prison Manual or clause (iv)(ka) of notification No.3106 and also finds that the board has not at all followed the precedents and petitioner seems to have fallen victim to the discriminatory approach on the part of the Board.Rule 478 and 481 of the prison Manual.As the present situation reminds the court the principal of law which may be per incuriam but earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not permissible and the matter will have to be resolved only in two ways either to follow the earlier decision or refer the matter to a larger Bench to examine the issue in case it is felt that earlier decision is not correct on merit and it is crystal clear that the learned coordinate bench has taken different view on the issue of applicability of clause (iv) of the notification No.3106 dated on 10/12/2002 and in order to maintain a Judicial discipline and to resolve the issue rather than to leave two conflicting Judgements to operate creating uncertainties it would be only appropriate to get the issue decided by a large Bench and the records be placed before Hon’ble the chief justice for appropriate direction.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
Written by -Prachee Novo Mukherjee
