TARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Tara Singh is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Patiala under the orders of Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. He was convicted and sentenced on September 15, 1979 i.e. after the enforcement of section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for 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/4 A).

(2.) THE matter regarding premature release of an accused convicted after the enforcement of section 433-A of the Code was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ranbir Singh Versus State of Haryana etc, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 268; Crl. W.P No. 628 of 1985 decided on May 2, 1986. It was decided in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in Maru Ram etc. v. Union of India AIR 1980 S.C. 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 sway over para 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual or similar other executive instructions regarding the early release of the life convicts. According to Marce Ram's case (supra) these convicts are a class apart and cannot invoke the aid of the instructions incomptiable with section 433-A of the Code issued by the Central or State Government prior to December 18, 1978. However, wide powers of executive clemency were also accepted in the said case and it was observed that section 433-A 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, 1987 irrespective of section 433-A of the Code.

(3.) THE petitioner contends that his case falls under second category in the above instructions. 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. No such restriction has been imposed regarding the prisoners of second category. This category consists of 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 commuted to life imprisonment on mercy petition. Consideration of cases of premature release on mercy petitions under Article 161 of the Constitution is not disputed on behalf of the respondent either. It is thus clear that After the enforcement of section 433-A of the Code a life convict can make a mercy petition to the Governor of Punjab for premature release.