JAGDISH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is serving the sentence for life imprisonment after being convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 29.9.1979 which was upheld till the Supreme Court, is seeking premature release on the ground that his case for premature release has to be considered in accordance with the instructions which were issued in the year 1979 and the new instructions dated 8.7.91 should not be taken into consideration while dealing with his case. In support of this observation, he relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Crl. Misc. No.13115-M of 1994 decided on 12.8.1996 to the following effect :

(2.) During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner adverted to the stand of the State spelt out in reply to paras No. 14 and 15 and submitted that the case of the petitioner had to be dealt with on the basis of instructions prevalent on the date of the conviction.

(3.) This submission, however, overlooks the position taken by the State in reply to paras 4 to 7. Apart from this submission that the case of a convict for premature release has to be dealt with on the basis of the instructions prevalent at the time when he committed the offence cannot be accepted. This submission ignores the legal position as stated by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Balwan, 1999 4 RCR(Cri) 65 which clearly lays down that premature release of accused persons convicted before the said date are to be considered on the basis of government instructions and dates of their conviction. Section 433-A Cr. PC will apply to those life convicts who were convicted after 18.12.78. If life convicts are to be given a larger benefit, it can only be done now under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India."