SADHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the context of the right of the 'lifers' (prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment prior to 18th December, 1978 being the date of coming into force of Section 433A, Cr. P. C.) to have their cases considered for premature release under the Punjab Jail Manual two contentions were urged by counsel appearing for the lifers before us in the above matters. First, it was contended that such lifers were entitled to have their cases for premature release considered by the concerned authorities on completion of ten years of sentence inclusive of remissions in the case of a female prisoner or a male prisoner of under 20 years of age at the date of the commission of the offence or completion of 14 years of sentence inclusive of remissions in the case of adult prisoners under Para 516-B of the Punjab jail Manual but since November 1971 the authorities concerned are not submitting their cases for such consideration until actual substantive imprisonment has been undergone for 6 years in case of female prisoners and prisoners below 20 years at the date of the commission of the offence and 8-1/2 years in case of adult prisoners and in that behalf certain executive instructions issued by the Punjab Government on 6th August 1971 are being relied upon but according to the counsel for the lifers such executive instructions issued in 1971 cannot affect the right conferred upon the lifers under Para 516-B which has the force of a statutory rule and statutory Rules cannot be amended or altered by any executive instructions; hence the lifers concerned in these matters are entitled to have their cases considered for premature release since they satisfy the requirements of Para 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual. In this behalf counsel relied upon the Punjab High Court's decision dated 9-11-1982 in Naranjan Singh's case (which decision is subject-matter of challenge in Criminal Appeal arising from leave being granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 499/1983). In other words, counsel canvassed for acceptance of the Punjab High Court's view in the aforesaid case by this Court.

(2.) Secondly, counsel for the lifers urged that the State of Punjab has been erroneously making a distinction between cases of prisoners who have been sentenced to death but whose sentences, on mercy petitions, have been commuted to life imprisonment and prisoners who have been straightway sentenced to life imprisonment in the matter of consideration of their cases for premature release in that in the case of the former completion of 14 years of actual sentence is insisted upon while in the case of the latter only 8-1/2 years of actual sentence is regarded as sufficient for such consideration, the case of Tapinder Singh s/o Manjit Singh, the petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 68 of 1983 being in point. According to counsel the State Government in this behalf has been relying upon certain executive instructions issued on 30th of January. 1976 but counsel pointed out that in the case of Mehar Singh v. State of Punjab (Unreported) a single Judge of the Punjab High Court held that those instructions will not be applicable to cases of prisoners convicted earlier to that date and Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2142 of 1982 preferred by the State of Punjab against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 18th February 1983 and, therefore, it is not open to the State Government to rely upon those executive instructions issued on 30th January, 1976 for making the distinction and postponing the consideration of the cases of prisoners falling within the former category until 14 years of actual imprisonment has been suffered by them.

(3.) Paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual runs thus: