Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 26 October, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1084/2010
Decided on 26.10.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
SANJEEV KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Sood, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Meera Bhatia, ASC for the State
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for directions to the respondent to release the petitioner on parole for a period of three months and for quashing of para 11.1 of the Parole/Furlough Guidelines, 2010.
2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was convicted in respect of the offence of criminal misconduct under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of `10,000/-. His conviction was confirmed by the High Court in Crl.A. 454/2009 and the Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of the High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner is serving his sentence since 03.04.2010. He submitted an application to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for grant of parole, which was denied to him vide order dated 8.7.2010, on the ground that para 11.1 of the Parole/Furlough Guidelines, 2010 requires that a convict must have served at least one year's incarceration excluding any period covered by remission and the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions laid down in the said para. Incidentally, the petitioner was taken into custody on 3.4.2010.
3. Counsel for the petitioner states that the prayer for grant of parole is based on two grounds. The first ground is that his family comprises of his wife and two minor school going daughters and the petitioner proposes to transfer his children from private schools to a government/Central School. He has also sought parole to enable him to file an appeal before the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi against his order of dismissal from employment with the Customs Department.
4. The first ground taken by the petitioner for seeking parole is devoid of merits, since it is the middle of the school academic session and any request for transfer of a student, from one school to another, in mid session is not entertained. If at all the petitioner proposes to take any step to shift his school going children from a private school to the Government School, he can do so only towards the end of the present academic session. In any case, even as per the status report filed by the SHO PS: Vikas Puri, apart from the wife and children of the petitioner, his father also resides in the same house and he can take necessary steps to fulfill the formalities for transferring the children from one school to the other.
5. As far as the second ground taken by the petitioner for grant of parole to file an appeal before the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi is concerned, the said ground cannot be equated with the ground given in para 9.7 of the Guidelines, which entitles a convict for parole to file a SLP before the Supreme Court against the judgment delivered by the High Court convicting/upholding the conviction of the convict. Furthermore, the appeal is proposed to be filed by the petitioner against his dismissal order dated 28.10.2009. The same could have been filed by the petitioner right upto 03.04.2010, whereafter he was incarcerated. Even if, he wishes to prefer an appeal against the said order now, it is only a departmental appeal which the petitioner can forward to the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi, from Jail, and for which parole is not required. For both the reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order dated 8.7.2010, rejecting the request of the petitioner for parole.
6. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that he has sought to challenge the constitutional validity of the Parole/Furlough Guidelines, 2010 for which, he submits that the matter may be sent to a Division Bench, is turned down as the aforesaid guidelines are only in the nature of administrative guidelines framed by the Government of NCT of Delhi, in consultation with the Delhi Legal Services Authority and under the guidance of the High Court, which are required to be followed in the matters of parole, to regulate the applications and ensure that they are considered in a fair and a transparent manner. There is no such question of the vires of any Statute/Rule/Regulation raised by the petitioner which required the Registry to place this matter before the Division Bench.
7. Even otherwise, exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not warranted in the present case as counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interfering the impugned order dated 8.7.2010 passed by the respondent. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being devoid of merits.
(HIMA KOHLI)
OCTOBER 26, 2010 JUDGE
rkb
