MEHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MEHAR Singh was tried for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code along with other accused and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 2-12-1983 rendered by Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 15-12-1982 and on the day he was convicted his age was described as 19 years. He had undergone 9 years actual sentence and had earned remission exceeding five years. He enjoyed paroles and furloughs on 8 occasions and was never found guilty of any jail offence. In view of the guidelines Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4 issued by the State Government, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 161 of the Constitution of India for grant of premature release. His petition Annexure P-5 was not considered for a sufficient long time, which led him to file, Criminal Writ Petition No. 548 of 1990. This petition was decided on 6-11-1990 whereby the State Government was directed to consider the premature release case of the petitioner within three months. The State Government considered his case and rejected the same on 8-11-1990 vide order copy of which was annexure P. 7. This order was assailed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2378-M of 1991. During the pendency of this petition, the State Government informed the petitioner that his case was again considered and rejected vide order copy of which was Annexure P-8. The main ground for rejection of the case as mentioned in the order is as follows :-Mehar Singh convict has not undergone the requisite period of actual sentence as stipulated in the instructions issued on 8-7-1991 and as such he is not eligible to have his case considered at this stage.

(2.) THE petitioner alleged that order Annexure P. 8 was wholly illegal and arbitrary. His case was to be considered within a period of three months as per directions of this Court which was to expire on 6-2-1991 and the instructions issued by the State Government on 8-7-1991 could not be enforced against him. He had undergone the requisite period of sentence as per instructions Annexures P-2 to P-4. His case was to be considered in the light of these instructions. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his premature release.

(3.) IN the return filed by the respondents it was admitted that the petitioner had undergone 8 years 5 months and 12 days substantive sentence and had earned remission for 5 years 18 days as on 12-6-1991. His case for premature release was considered and rejected keeping in view the fresh policy instructions of the Government vide which the earlier instructions in respect of remission of sentence of life convicts were superseded.