Skip to content


Gurmail Singh Vs. State and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1630 of 1985
Judge
Reported in1985WLN(UC)579
AppellantGurmail Singh
RespondentState and anr.
Excerpt:
arms act - sections 25 & 27 and rajasthan prisons (shortening of sentence) rules, 1958--rule 8--petitioner already undergone 2/3rd of sentence--held, he is eligible for consideration of remission;the petitioner has already undergone 2/3rd of sentence including remission and he is eligible for consideration of remission under rule 8.;order accordingly. - .....petitioner by this writ petition has sought a mandamus that his case may be placed before the advisory board for the remission of the sentence petitioner invited my attention to clause (3) of rule 8 of the rajasthan prisons (shortening of sentence) rules, 1958. since the petitioner is eligible for consideration under clause (3) of rule 8 for remission, therefore, he prays that his case may be placed before the advisory board for scrutiny as required under rule 8 of the rules. learned counsel has invited my attention to the case of subudhi etc. v. state and ors. 1985 hir 225 & 1985 cr. l.j. 1979.3. mr. dave, learned dy. g.a. does not dispute this part that the petitioner had already undergone 2/3rd of sentence including remission and he is eligible for consideration of remission.....
Judgment:

Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.

1. Petitioner was arrested on 29th of May, 1974 and investigation a challan was filed under Section 302 IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Petitioner was ultimately convicted by the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar and sentenced him to Life Imprisonment, by his order dated 6-9-1975.

2. It has been submitted by the petitioner that he has already served sentence for more and than 2/3rd of the sentence provided for the offence. Petitioner by this writ petition has sought a mandamus that his case may be placed before the Advisory Board for the remission of the sentence Petitioner invited my attention to Clause (3) of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958. Since the petitioner is eligible for consideration under Clause (3) of Rule 8 for remission, therefore, he prays that his case may be placed before the Advisory Board for scrutiny as required under Rule 8 of the Rules. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the case of Subudhi etc. v. State and Ors. 1985 HIR 225 & 1985 Cr. L.J. 1979.

3. Mr. Dave, learned Dy. G.A. does not dispute this part that the petitioner had already undergone 2/3rd of sentence including remission and he is eligible for consideration of remission under Rule 8.

4. Mr. Dave informs that the case of the petitioner that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Advisory Board no 5-9-1985 but for want of some more information, the matter could not be decided. Be as it may, in the facts and circumstances of this case it is directed that the superintendent, Central Jail Bikaner is directed to place the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board for consideration of the remission of his sentence. If the Advisory Board recommends the same, the papers should be sent to the State Government forthwith for necessary orders. All these process should be completed within a period of three months. This writ petition stands disposed of in terms of above direction.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //