TARSEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARSEM Singh, petitioner has moved this criminal miscellaneous under section 482, Cr.P.C., read with Articles 226/227, Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his detention is illegal, as he is entitled to premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE petitioner was tried by the Court of Sessions, Hoshiarpur for the offence of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on 28.2.1986. At the time of commission of offence he was less than 20 years and he has since undergone 6 years, 2 months actual sentence and also earned remission exceeding 5 years. Under instructions Annexure P1 to P3 he was entitled to premature release. The respondent-authorities received a mercy petition of the petitioner on 10.4.1990, but failed to decide the same within reasonable time and as such, he moved Cr Misc. 1280 (sic) M of 1990 and a direction was issued on 8.2.1990 for deciding that mercy petition within a period of 4 months. The premature release case of the petitioner was, thus, required to be decided on or before 18.4.1991, but the respondent-authorities had into released him so far.

(3.) IT is not disputed at the bar that the original instructions Annexures P1 to P3 were in force prior to 8.7.1991, and that on 8.7.1991 new instructions for deciding the premature release case of the convicts have been issued by the State Government. The respondent-authorities have acted upon and applied the instructions of 8.7.1991. Sh. Jindal, learned counsel urges that direction having been issued by this Court in Cr. Misc decided on 18.12.1990, the case of the petitioner should have been considered and decided under the instructions Annexures P1 to P3 and that instructions dated 8.7.1991 were not applicable. I find force in this contention of Sh. Jindal.