GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Gurdev Singh is undergoing life imprisonment under the orders of Sessions Judge, Sangrur and is lodged in Central Jail Bathinda. He was convicted and sentenced on 6.4.1979 i.e. after the enforcement of section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). His appeal was also dismissed by this Court. Through present petition he has prayed for his premature release mainly relying on the instructions of the Government issued in the month of August, 1986 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) THE matter regarding premature release of an accused convicted after the enforcement of section 433A of the Code was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana etc. (Crl. W.P. No. 628 of 1985), decided on May 2, 1986 in the light of Supreme Court judgment in Maru Ram etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1980 SC 2147. It was held therein that the correct interpretation of Maru Ram's case (supra) is that section 433-A of the Code has a way over Para 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual or similar other executive instructions regarding early release of the life convicts. It was held in Maru Ram's case that these convicts are a class apart and cannot invoke the aid of the instructions incompatible with section 433-A of the Code, issued by the Central or State Government prior to December 18, 1978. It was further observed that, however, wide powers of executive clemency existed and section 433A of the Code by no means precludes the State from working the same remission scheme which seems to be fairly reasonable, meaning thereby that executive instructions with regard to remissions were possible even after December 18, 1978 irrespective of section 433A of the Code.

(3.) THE petitioner contends that his case falls under second category in the above instructions. He has clearly stated in para 6 of the petition that he is a very old person and has crossed the age of 75 years and has been declared infirm prisoner. When he claims to be an infirm prisoner, obviously his case is covered within the scope of second category. Annexure P-3 is the report of Medical Board and the Board also recommended his case stating that due to old age and weakness his name is recommended for release. Member (Orthopedic) of the Medical Board has further remarked rupture with knees movement of spine painful and limited osteoarthritis with knees and spine. These remarks clearly indicate infirmity by illness. A bare reading of the instructions would show that the date of conviction of a prisoner is significant only for the life convicts of first category and not such restriction has been imposed regarding the prisoners of second category. This category consists or all infirm prisoners who were incapacitated by illness, provided their release is supported by recommendation of a committee of three doctors of the district concerned and provided they do not fall within category of life convicts whose death sentence had been communted to life imprisonment on mercy petition. Admittedly it is not a case in which the death sentence had been commutted and the board of doctors as referred to above has recommended his case. Consideration of case of premature release on mercy petitions under Article 161 of the Constitution is not disputed on behalf of respondent either and in the light of what has been stated above it is not proper to conclude that the case of the petitioner is not covered under the policy issued vide Punjab Government instructions dated 21.8.1986.