JALANDHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is heinousness of crime wholly extraneous to the grant of pardon premature release? A learned single Judge in Mithu Singh, v. State of Punjab 1989 (1) Ree. Cri R 238 has taken the view that "the heinousness or gravity of the offence is no legal ground to discriminate the case of one accused with the cases of other accused...... This view appears to have been reiterated in later decisions viz., Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana 1989 (2) All Cri LR 290 and in Sehaj Ram v. State of Haryana 1990 (2) Chand Cri C 99. Sekhon; J. has expressed reservation about the view taken in Mithu Singh's case. On a reference this matter has come up before us.

(2.) Mr. Vijay Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that heinousness or gravity of the offence is a matter which is considered by the Court while awarding punishment. It is not relevant to the question of premature release of the convict. He has further contended that the State Government having issued instructions vide letter dated 12/12/1985 (Annexure P. 2), the mercy petitions had to be examined only in accordance with the instructions. Heinousness of the offence is not one of the factors mentioned in the letter and cannot thus be taken into consideration. On the other hand, Mr. O. P. Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents has contended that the Constitution confers very wide powers on the Executive Head of the State and no impediments can be placed thereon. He further contends that the various factors mentioned in the instructions issued by the Government from time to time are only illustrative and not exhaustive of the grounds which can be taken into consideration while deciding the case for premature release.

(3.) A word about the necessity and nature of the 'power to pardon'. It has been recognised since the hoary past. In the words of Chief Justice Marshal 'this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the Executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance .........." In the words of Chief Justice Taft in Philip Grossman's case (69 L. Ed. 527)