GURMEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Gurmeet Singh was sentenced to life imprisonment by Sessions Judge, Patiala on September 9, 1977, for the offence of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, he was aged 18 years at the time of conviction and is being treated prisoner below 20 years of age. He claims to have actually undergone sentence of 10 years 9 months having been arrested since June 5, 1977 and earned remissions to the extent of 7 years 9 months and 24 days, meaning thereby, that he has undergone more than 10 years sentence including remissions when actual sentence undergone is more than 6 years. Therefore, on the basis of the instructions issued by the State Government for dealing with convicts who were below 20 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence contained in Annexure P 1 and P2, petitioner Gurmeet Singh has sought unconditional release forthwith through present petition contending that his case for premature release though considered in the years 1983 and 1985 was wrongly rejected, and he has already undergone sentence of more than 15 years. Petitioner Gurmeet Singh has further alleged that his case was initiated again on January 30, 1986 but no result was communicated to him till the filing of the present petition, although he presumes the same to have been rejected.

(2.) IN the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is admitted that petitioner Gurmeet Singh has undergone about 10 years 9 months of actual sentence and has earned remissions for about 7 years. Petitioner Gurmeet Singh continued to be in custody even after filing of this reply and thus as per admission of the respondents as well he has already undergone sentence of more than 18 years. It is neither disputed in the written statement hat the petitioner was below 20 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. Claim of the petitioner that in the light of paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual and instructions issued by the State Government dated May 12, 1987 annexure P-1 and dated December 29 1986 annexure P-2, laying the guidelines for the release of convicts like him was entitled to be released having already completed more than 18 years sentences including remissions, thus remains uncontested and perhaps that is why case of the petitioner was considered for premature release three times before. Presently initiated case of the petitioner was rejected on March 2 1, 1983 and Annexure P-4 is a copy of the rejection order.