Dismissed

Jai Parkash v. Krishan Mohan F.C. & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Feb 2011COCP/281/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition for non-compliance of an order regarding premature release, the High Court held that the respondent authorities correctly applied policy guidelines requiring 14 years of total sentence, as the petitioner had not yet completed that period, thus dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition for contempt and the application for premature release were dismissed.

Jai Parkash Vs Krishan Mohan F.C… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

#1#

¶2

COCP.No.281 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

COCP.No.281 of 2011

¶5

Date of decision: 08.2.2011

Jai Parkash

….Petitioner

Vs.

Krishna Mohan and another

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. H.P.S Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Jaswant Singh, J

¶13

Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short “Act of 1971”) for non-compliance of order dated 22.12.2008 (P.1) passed by this Court in Crl.M.No.33901-M of 2008 and while rejecting his case for pre-mature release vide order dated 25.8.2010 (P.2) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana-respondent No.1.

¶14

Petitioner filed Crl.M.No.33901-M of 2008 praying for early disposal of his case for pre-mature release within a time bound period and the same was allowed vide order dated 22.12.2008 (P.1) with a direction to the competent authority to take a final decision to dispose of the pre-mature release case of the petitioner within a period of two months. In pursuance of the direction dated 22.12.2008, the pre-mature release case of the petitioner has been considered by the State Level Committee but in view of the policy dated 28.11.1977, the Committee did not recommend the pre-mature release case of the petitioner as he has not been found eligible for the same

¶15

COCP.No.281 of 2011 #2#

¶16

and it was further observed that case of the petitioner will be considered after completion of 14 years total sentence. and the recommendations were agreed upon by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana-respondent No.1 vide order dated 25.8.2010 (P.2)

¶17

In these circumstances , present contempt petition is filed.

¶18

It is necessary to mention here that the petitioner along with four others was tried, convicted and sentenced for committing the murder of one Head Constable by stabbing on his right side of his chest and also throwing red chilies at him when he (Head Constable) was going to produce the petitioner and others before the trial Court at Sonepat on 3.8.1978. An FIR No.78 dated 3.8.1978, P.S Sampla under Section 302/323/120-B/224 IPC was registered. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and order dated 25.10.1980 convicted and sentenced the petitioner for life imprisonment.

¶19

The policy instructions dated 28.11.1977 (P.5) has been placed on file by the petitioner and perusal of clause (1) of the same reveals that case of an adult male life convict can be considered for pre-mature release only after completion of 8-1/2 years of substantive sentence and 14 years sentence including remissions. Admittedly, the petitioner is a life convict and he has undergone the following sentence:

¶20

“Y M D Actual Sentence 09 10 17 Total Sentence 13 01 24”

¶21

A perusal of the figures reproduced here in above reveals that the petitioner has not completed 14 years total sentence including remissions as required under the policy referred above and as such the Financial Commissioner has rightly agreed with the recommendations of the

¶22

COCP.No.281 of 2011 #3# State Level Committee while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is not found eligible for pre-mature release as per the policy dated 28.11.1977 and his case will be considered as and when he completes 14 years of total sentence.

¶23

In my opinion, respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order dated 25.8.2010 (P.2) in compliance of order dated 22.12.2008 (P.1) has not violated the direction of this Court rather the same is perfectly legal and justified and does not require any interference by this Court while exercising powers under Section 12 of the Act of 1971.

¶24

Dismissed. February 08, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE

Jai Parkash v. Krishan Mohan F.C. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Parkash v. Krishan Mohan F.C. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munshi Ram & Ors. Vs Pseb Patiala & Ors.

Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat

Manjeet @ Nakta Vs State of Haryana

M/S Enco Engineers Combine Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Bhupendra Steel Pvt.Ltd

Shangara Singh Vs Mangal Singh and Ors.

Jagjit Singh Vs Mahabir and Others