MOHINDER PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this writ are that Mohinder Pal was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Gurdaspur, on December 24, 1976, and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was also convicted under sections 323 and 324 both read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code but the sentences awarded for those offences were short ones and were ordered to run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life. Petitioner's appeal against his convictions and sentences met with no success. At the time of recording conviction of the petitioner, he had mentioned his age as 17 years but the learned Judge recorded that he was 21 years of age by appearance. When the petitioner was sent to jail after his conviction, the Medical Officer of the jail examined him under Para 123 of the Punjab Jail Manual and he found him (i.e. the petitioner) of the age of 17 years.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he was below 20 years of age at the time of his conviction and on that account he was sent to Borstal Jail on three occasions and thereafter he was transferred to Amritsar Jail or, medical grounds. According to him, he has completed a period of imprisonment of 12 years 1 month and 20 days including remissions and under section 516-B of the said Manual he was entitled to have his case of pre mature release reconsidered by the State Government. It is also alleged in the petition that the Jail Superintendent did not forward his case of pre-mature release as he was not considering him below 20 years at the time of commission of the offence and is demanding proof regarding his age.

(3.) IN reply filed by the State the allegation of the petitioner about his examination by the medical Officer of Jail is admitted. It is also stated that the petitioner has undergone 11 years and 7 months imprisonment including remissions. It is, however, alleged that the petitioner's case for his pre-mature release was not initiated by the Superintendent of Jail, Amritsar. because he could not produce valid proof to the effect that he was less than 20 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence.