GURBAX SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner as per the written statement filed by, Respondent No. 1 had admittedly undergone 9 years, 2 months and 8 days of actual sentence including detention during trial by 17.10.1989 and he had earned remissions of more than 6 years. His conduct in the jail is stated to be good. The State Government has rejected his mercy petition vide order Annexure P. 7 dated 13.10.1989, which is reproduced below :-

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record. No doubt, under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, the State Government is competent to commute or remit sentences and this power cannot ordinarily be subjected to judicial review, yet all the same if the State Government has laid down certain guidelines regarding the remission of sentences of convicts, then it should follow the same uniformly in similar circumstances as otherwise it will result in arbitrariness. There is no dispute that even after the insertion of section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State Government is competent to commute or remit sentences under Article 161 of the Constitution and in that regard could lay down guideliness for issuing instructions. The apex Court in Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 S.C. 2147 after fully discussing the import of the provisions of section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure had upheld the right of the State Government to lay down guidelines in the shape of instructions to deal with the mercy petitions of different prisoners in the matter of remission or commutation of sentences. The State of Punjab did issue such instructions from time to time which are appended as Annexure P. 1, P. 2 and P. 3 to the writ petition. The latest instructions on the point issued vide letter dated 12.12.1935 read as under :-

(3.) IN view of the above referred legal position, it transpires that the State Government has failed to give any cogent reason for withholding the concession of premature release to the petitioner as per the guidelines contained in its own instructions dated 12.12.1985. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to be released prematurely forthwith on furnishing usual bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Patiala, by accepting this writ petition.