MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUKHTIAR Singh, son of Harnam Singh has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein that a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or mandamus commanding the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith be issued.

(2.) THE facts which gave rise to this petition are as follows. The petitioner along with his co-accused Gurmej Singh was arrested in a case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 11th September, 1966 After trial he was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Session Judge, Jalandhar, - vide order dated 11th May, 1967. The case of the petitioner for premature release came up for consideration before the State Government quite a number of times, but the same was rejected since there was adverse police reports against him and he had also committed a number of jail offences. The petitioner admittedly on 23rd August, 1985, had undergone a substantive period of 18 years, 11 months and 10 days inclusive of remissions, The case of the petitioner for premature release was last considered in the year 1985 and was rejected. On 20th March, 1985, the Superintendent Jails was directed to communicate this fact to the petitioner.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. D.S. Keer, learned counsel for the Advocate-General, Punjab, has cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh and others, AIR 1976 SC 1552, wherein their Lordships have been pleased to hold that a sentence for life would enure till the lifetime of the accused as it is not possible to fix a particular period of the prisoner's death; so any remissions given under the Rules could not be regarded as a substitute for a sentence of sentence for life. The Rules framed under the Prisons Act or under the Jail Manual do not affect th total period which the prisoner has to suffer but merely amount to administrative instructions regarding the various remission to be given to the prisoner from time to time in accordance with the rules. The question of remission of the entire sentence or a part of it lies within the exclusive domain of the appropriate Government under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and neither section 57 of the Penal Code nor any rules or local Acts can stultify the effect of the sentence of life imprisonment given by the Court under Penal Code. The prisoner cannot be released automatically on the expiry of 20 years.