CHHINNA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made in the present Criminal Misc. is to strike down the order dated 25-7-1996 Annexure R. 1 and to give directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner Chhinna Singh for his premature release. The prayer of petitioner Chhinna Singh is being contested primarily on two grounds that he had not served actual substantive sentence of 14 years as required under S. 433-A, Cr. P.C. and secondly that he had committed double murder and as such he is not entitled to be considered for premature release.

(2.) Admittedly if the remission period of petitioner is clubbed with his actual sentence it would come more than 10 years as the petitioner claims that he was less than 20 years on the date of the commission of offence.

(3.) There are two sets of provisions under which the premature release can be granted. Firstly I would like to revert to the provisions of Ss. 432 and 433 and 433-A, Cr. P.C. Section 432, Cr. P.C. lays down :-"(1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government, may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence orremit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced."Section 433, Cr. P.C. lays down :-"The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person sentenced, commute :-(a) a sentence of death, for any other punishment provided by the IPC;(b) A sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for fine;(c) a sentence of rigorous imprisonment, for simple imprisonment for any term to which that person might have been sentenced, or for fine;(d) a sentence of simple imprisonment, for fine.