MAHAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the code) read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, relates to grant of premature release of the petitioner, who after his arrest on 14.1.1980, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on 10.8.1981.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he remained in custody from 14.1.1980 to 9.8.1981 for a period of one year six months and 27 days and thereafter has undergone actual sentence from 10.8.1981 for a period of 12 years one month and 20 days till the filing of this petition. Besides he earned remissions for a period equivalent to six years four months and 26 days. Thus according to the petitioner total sentence undergone by him is 20 years one month and 13 days. It was further pleaded that vide letter dated 28.11.1987 the State of Haryana took policy decision and issued instructions in exercise of its powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, to release the convict/prisoners who had already undergone 8-1/2 years of substantive sentence and 14 years total including remissions. Later on the State of Haryana vide its letter dated 28.9.1988 in supersession of the earlier instructions issued fresh instructions for consideration of cases for prematurely releasing the convict/prisoners of different categories. In supersession of the instructions dated 28.9.1983 the State of Haryana issued fresh instructions dated 19.11.1991 regarding premature release of convict prisoners. It was also pleaded that during his confinement in the jail, he had committed four jail offences on 9.8.1981, 12.7.1983, 8.3.1984 and 28.11.1985 for which he was duly punished by the Superintendent Jail. It was next pleaded that the State Level Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for premature release under para 2(a) of the instructions dated 19.11.1991 on completion of 14 years actual sentence including under trial period and after earning atleast six years remissions. It was further pleaded that the State Government vide order dated 28.5.1992 rejected the case of the petitioner for his premature release. In reply filed by the respondents, it was pleaded that the petitioner had already undergone 13 years 1 month and 24 days of actual sentence and has earned remissions of 6 years 3 months and 5 days. It was further pleaded that the State Level Committee constituted by the State of Haryana after considering the case of the petitioner under the fresh instructions dated 19.11.1991 recommended the premature release of the petitioner after completion of 14 years of actual sentence including under-trial period and after earning at least 6 years' remission and that the petitioner having not yet undergone the requisite sentence, his case for premature release was rejected. It was also admitted that the petitioner was punished for four jail offences dates whereof an identical with these mentioned in the main petition itself and that the present petition for grant of premature release is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner would be covered under para 2(b) and not under para 2(a) of the government instructions dated 19.11.1991. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it cannot be said that the crime committed by the petitioner was a heinous detailed in Para 2(a) of the government instructions dated 19.11.1991. Thus the case of the petitioner is not covered under para 2(a) of the government instructions. Rather the case of the petitioner would be covered under para 2(b) of the said instructions. Thus the case of the petitioner can be legally considered after 10 years of actual sentence including under-trial period, as the petitioner has already undergone actual sentence for a period exceeding 10 years and total period of sentence also exceeds 14 years.