SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 27.09.2012 (Annexure P-2) passed by Principal Secretary, Home Affairs and Justice Department, Punjab, whereby the case of the petitioner for premature release has been rejected. A further prayer has also been made to re-consider the case of the petitioner in view of Government instructions dated 08.07.1991(Annexure P-1).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sec. 302 Penal Code and he has already undergone more than 14 years of actual sentence and 22 years of sentence including remissions whereas as per Government instructions dated 08.07.1991(Annexure P-1), the life convicts are required to undergo 12 years of actual sentence and 18 years including remissions. Learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court the decision delivered in 2015(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 875 : 2015(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 209 : Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 48 of 2014 titled as Union of India Vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others, on 23.07.2015 whereby, the earlier order dated 09.07.2014 has been modified to the extent that the President of India in exercise of his powers under Art. 72 of the Constitution of India and the Governors of the States in exercise of their powers under Art. 161 of the Constitution of India are not prevented from exercising their power. Learned counsel further submits that now after decision in the aforesaid Crl. Writ Petition by Honourable the Apex Court, the case of the petitioner is to be reconsidered in view of the clarification/modification of earlier interim order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the case of the petitioner for premature release was rejected on the ground that he had committed heinous crime and the authority concerned was also of the opinion that the premature release case of the petitioner on the basis of mercy would give a wrong signal to the society and there would be propensity for people to commit such offences. Learned State counsel also submits that in compliance of order dated 23.07.2015 passed by Honourable the Apex Court, the premature release case of the petitioner will be re-considered and the same is likely to be decided within two months.