The judgment states, If such statutory rules are framed, the same would be the governing law on matters covered there under and not the guidelines issued by the executive from time to time.Īt the same time we may observe that the fact that such statutory rules have not been framed so far dose not militate against the authority of the state to issue executive directions. The judges agreed with the petitioner that the government should be well advised to frame statutory rules under the Prisons Act like other states. The HC has asked the home department secretary to look into the said aspect and take appropriate remedial and corrective measures against the officials concerned, responsible for favouring the convicts in spite of the mandate in the CrPC. Jindal had argued that prisoners on completing 18 years of imprisonment with remissions were given the benefit of guidelines of 1978 in spite of the mandate in section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). His claim will have to be considered keeping in mind the policy decision whether by reason of the statutory rule or otherwise at the time of his conviction. No convict can be said to have any constitutional right for obtaining any remission in his sentence. The legal right springs from not only the Prisons Act, but also the rules framed there under. The HC said, The legal position expounded in this decision is that a right to be considered for remission is a legal one. The competent authority cannot go by the 1978 guidelines even if it is favouring Jindal as he had rightly examined his proposal.Ī division bench comprising Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice A R Joshi said, In our opinion, there is no infirmity in the guidelines of 1992 and by no stretch of imagination, the same can be said to be hit by the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The HC observed in its May 2 order: The guidelines of 1978 have been superseded and are not applicable to prisoners undergoing life sentence and instead the prisoners are governed by the revised guidelines of 1992. He had prayed that the guidelines were in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the state government had failed to make statutory rules in the last 51 years. Jindal had filed a petition that his plea for premature release be decided as per the guidelines of 1978 as he had completed 22 years of imprisonment. The maximum period of imprisonment, including remissions for an offence of murder committed by the prisoners in a dacoity and murder cases is 22 years, as per clause four of the guidelines. Jindal had claimed that he was entitled for a premature release as per the home department guidelines of November 16, 1978. He has undergone 15 years of actual imprisonment, inclusive of the undertrial period and 22 years of imprisonment with remission. Karnataka Prn 1978 Manual And The Karnataka Prn 1978 Trial Period And
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |