CHANNA SINGH Vs. STATE OR PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution bemoaning that the Punjab Government gas not considered his case for premature release under the provisions of paragraph 5 16-B of the Punjab Jail Manual read with the Government instructions relevant for the purpose. He claims that he has already completed more than 5 years and 5 months substantive sentence and if a period of 1 year and 4 months is added thereto, which he spent as an undertrial, he satisfies one of the two important requirements of the aforesaid provision by having undergone 6 years' actual sentence. Besides that, he claim that in that event he would also qualify the second requirement of completing 10 years' sentence inclusive of remissions. Thus, the principle question which has been raised is whether the period spent by a convict in jail as am under-trial is to be reckoned for the purposes of computation of the two periods envisaged under the aforesaid paragraph of the Punjab Jail, Manual and the relevant instructions.

(2.) IN Kartar Singh v. The State of Haryana, AIR 1992 S.C. 1439 a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, while considering such a question relating to Haryana prisoners, had interpreted paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual as applicable to Haryana. in the light of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had authoritatively, held that the benefit of undertrial period is not to be given to life convicts. Their Lordships, while holding so, had occasion to deal with instructions of the State of Haryana dated 2nd February, 1981 whereunder it was ordered that for the purpose of considering cases of premature release and calculating 8-1/2 years' substantive sentence and 14 years imprisonment including remissions the benefit of under-trial period is not to be given to life convicts, who have been convicted before 18th December 1978. The learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to steer through the said Supreme Court judgment by contending that there was no similar instruction in the State of Punjab and sequally the rule laid down in Kartar Singh's cape (supra) was not applicable to the case of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the State has met 'the argument by placing before me for perusal Punjab Government letter No. 11/88/82-5JL,/23056, dated 14th December, 1982 in which on the basis of the judgment in Kartar Singh's case (supra), instructions have been issued that the benefit of set off contemplated under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be available to life convicts and the premature release cases of such convicts may, in future be sent without giving the benefit of undertrial period under-gone by them. The said Punjab Government's instruction in that regard is a complete answer to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and thus the same is repelled.

(3.) AS is plain, in Sukh Lal's case, Lordships of the Supreme Court did not advert to their earlier decision in Kartar Singh's case (supra). The earlier case was specifically relating to paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual and the relevant instructions. That governs the case in hand specifically. And on the other hand, Sukh Lal's case pertains to the relevant provision, as contained in the West Bengal Jail Code. But even if there be no conflict between the two, leverage seemingly has only been given to treat the under-trial period as a period of imprisonment undergone by an under trial.