KULWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KULWANT Singh petitioner was sentenced to life. imprisonment on 17th December, 1983. He was arrested on 24-5-1982. He had undergone 8 years 11 months actual, sentence, and had also earned remissions exceeding 6 years. He maintained satisfactory conduct in jail and thus became eligible for consideration of his case for premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The. petitioner moved a petition for grant of premature release on 17th June, 1990 which was duly received by respondent No. 1 but the State Government failed to consider his case for sufficiently long time. He then moved criminal writ petition No. 14677-M of 1990 in which an order directing the respondents to dispose of mercy petition of the petitioner within four months was passed on 18th December, 1990. In view of this direction, the case of the petitioner was requested to be decided on or before 18th April, 1991. The petitioner alleged that he was not released by the State Government, in pursuance of the directions and he thus, presumed that his case might have been rejected on these averments he filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India holding that the petitioner had been deprived. of his liberty without following the procedure established by law and he be held entitled to premature release.

(2.) IN reply to the petition, respondent No. 1 pleaded that case of the petitioner was duly considered by the Government keeping in view the latest instructions. He did nor fulfil the conditions as envisaged in the instructions as such his case was rejected on 30-8-1991. Copy of the impugned order is also on file which shows that case of the petitioner was considered in view of the fresh policy instructions issued by the Government on 8th July, 1991 but otherwise as on 15-4-1991 he had undergone actual sentence for 8 years 10 months 25 days and had earned remissions for 5 years 8 months 13 days. He was also allowed parole for, 6 months 16 days.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioners that according to the earlier instruction a issued by the Government it was incumbent to consider the case of the petitioner for premature release when he had undergone 8-1/2 years actual sentence and a total of 14 years sentenced inclusive of remissions. The case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not fulfil the conditions as envisaged by the instructions issued on 8-7-1999. The case of the petitioner should have been decided as per directions given by this Court by 18th April, 1991 as per instructions. already prevailing and the instructions issued subsequently could not be applied to his case. I find that this contention of learned counsel is well merited. The State Government was to comply with the order passed by this Court on 18th December, 1990 and as new instructions had not come into force by that time, his case should have been determined in accordance with the executive instructions prevailing and applicable at the relevant time. Rejection of the petitioner's case for premature release on the ground that he had not completed 10 years of substantive imprisonment is not proper.