ARJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302/307/148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code along with others. This pertained to a first information report dated 17.6.1981 registered at Police Station Dinanagar. He was arrested on 27.6.1981. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 100/-. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner contends that he was convicted on 23.11.1981. He remained in jail till 11.5.1987. He was on bail from 12.5.1987 to 30.5.1995 when his Special Leave petition was pending in the Supreme Court. He surrendered on 1.6.1995 and since then is confined in jail. By virtue of the present petition, it is claimed that petitioner was aged 17 years at the time of conviction. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the age of the petitioner as 17 years though observed that he appears to be 20 or 21 years of age.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that his case should have been considered in accordance with paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual since the petitioner was below the age of 18 years. He should be released in accordance with instructions issued under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. Needless to say that petition as such has been contested. Despite the opportunity, reply has not been filed. On 13.1.1997 last opportunity was given to the respondents to file the reply but the respondents did not care to do so. In these circumstances, there was no occasion for giving any further opportunity to the respondents to file the reply.

(3.) IN that event the learned counsel on behalf of the State contended that under Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the convict must undergo 14 years actual sentence and therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of any such instructions. Seemingly, this prevailed with the State while rejecting the case of the petitioner when the impugned order was passed. The said order reads :- "Whereas convict Arjan Singh s/o Charan Dass aged (sic) years resident of village Kalanaur District Gurdaspur was convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and awarded imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 700/- and in default of payment of fine, 10 months further imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide his order dated 24.11.1981. The conviction of convict Arjan Singh S/o Charan Dass is of 24.11.1981. His case for premature release has been considered under section 433-A of Criminal Procedure Code according to which he is required to undergo 14 years of actual sentence as decided by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 11309-M of 1994. The convict has undergone actual sentence of 6 years 9 months and 24 days as on 8.5.1996. Accordingly, the case of the convict has been rejected after one considered by the competent authority." The said contention indeed cannot be accepted. Normally when there is difference of opinion, the matter should have been referred to a larger Bench but when the Supreme Court has already settled the controversy, it is wholly unnecessary to refer the matter to a larger Bench. This question had arisen in the case of Maru Ram etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1980 SC 2147. The Supreme Court discussed various aspects of the controversy and finally concluded :-