KIRPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Kirpal Singh, a life convict, has sought a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondent -State to consider his case for premature release. In the return filled on behalf of the respondent -State, it has been averred that before the petitioner's case for premature release could be considered, there was a condition precedent that he must have undergone six years actual sentence and 10 years sentence inclusive of remissions which he has not done.

(2.) RELYING upon Supreme Court decision rendered in Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 1128 -29 of 1982 dated 3rd March, 1983, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that period of detention during trial has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of seeing as to whether the convict's detention in jail has been of the requisite period in terms of para 516 -B of Punjab Jail Manual, read with Government Memo. No. 13311 -6JJ/71/9656, dated 10 -11 -1971.

(3.) THEIR Lordships have stated in the given case that for the purpose of considering the case of a life convict for premature release, it becomes necessary to know as to how much he has been in actual jail detention and for that the period spent under detention during trial has to be taken into consideration. The following observations of their Lordships are instructive in this regard : - "With regard to the second contention the State Government is undoubtedly right in its submission that the period of imprisonment undergone by an accused as an under - trial prisoner is not liable to be taken into account for the purpose of reducing the terms of imprisonment for life because the sentence being one of life imprisonment, it in not possible to deduct any period of under trial detention from what is an imprisonment for life. But, for the purpose of considering whether the case of a prisoner should be considered for premature release on the completion of 11 years under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 591 of the West Bengal Jail Code and on completion of 20 years under Part IV Rule 29 of the same Code, we do not see any reason why the person as an under -trial prisoner should not be taken into account. So also the remission earned by a prisoner must be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the case of a prisoner falls within sub -rule (1) of Rule 591 or Part IV Rule 29 of the West Bengal Jail Code, because both these rules specifically provide that in computing the period of 14 years or 20 years, as the case may be, remission earned, if any, shall be taken into account." In view of their Lordship's decision in question the period spent by the petitioner -convict in jail as under -trial has to be counted for the purpose of seeing as to whether he has been in actual jail custody for a period of six years or not. It is admitted on both hands that if the under -trial detention period is taken into consideration then the petitioner had completed the requisite period of the actual jail detention. In view of the above, it has become incumbent upon the State of consider his case for premature release in accordance with law.