(1.) The petitioner who claims to be less than 17 years of age on the date of crime on being sentenced to life imprisonment under S. 302, I.P.C. on Mar. 12, 1980, prays that since he has undergone more ten years' imprisonment (actual plus remissions), the State authorities be directed to consider his case for premature release. This claim is made in the light of para. 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual the relevant part of which reads as under :-
(2.) The submission of Mr. B.S. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner, as has been noticed above, appears to be the result of some confusion as the learned consel equates 'remission' with 'commutation' of sentences. He while conceding that S. 433-A is a complete bar to the remission of sentences as envisaged by S. 432, Cr.P.C, contends that this bar is not applicable to the power of the State Government to direct a premature release of the convict as envisaged by Cl. (b) of S. 433, Cr.P.C. As pointed out earlier, this submission is founded on the belief that remission of a sentence is the same thing as commutation of a sentence. This, however, on the face of it, is totally fallacious. The ordinary dictionary meaning of 'remission' is to remit, relinquishment of a claim, pardon, forgiveness. On the other hand, 'to commute' means to exchange or to exchange for a punishment less severe. This was the precise meaning attributed to these two words by the Law Commission in its 41st report while it was considering the revision of Ss. 401 and 402 of the earlier Cr.P.C. This is what the Commission observed in its report :-
(3.) The petition is thus totally meritless and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.