BAIWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reply filed Copy given.

(2.) Shri Balwinder Singh through this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the quashment of the order Annexure P. 3 dated 13-5-1997 passed by the State vide which the case of the petitioner for releasing him prematurely Was declined.

(3.) The admitted facts are that the petitioner alongwith four others was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. on two counts and was sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment dated 14-3-1975 and in these circumstances he was entitled to be considered for premature release as per the instructions dated 6-8-1971. The petitioner filed Cri. Misc. No. 1528-M of 1996 earlier. The petition was contested by the State on the plea that the petitioner had committed offence under the Excise Act when he was granted parole and that he overstayed and, therefore, he was not entitled to premature release. Vide judgment dated 5-3- 1997 passed in Cri. Misc. No. 15285-M of 1996 the prayer of the petitioner was allowed and the relevant observations of the High Court are as under: In the face of this provision, the learned State counsel has not disputed that for the purposes of consideration of premature release of a life convict the sentence awarded to him for an offence committed while in prison or during suspension of his sentence will not be taken into account. It is also not disptited that under the instructions dated 16-8-1971, issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 482 of the Code, the case of the life convict for his premature release is to be considered after he has actually undergone 5 years 6 months of actual sentence and 14 years of sentence including remissions. It is also not disputed that this condition stands satisfied in the present case. In these circumstances the competent authority was not justified in rejecting the case of the petitioner for his premature release merely on the ground that he was convicted and sentenced for 2 offences under the Excise Act or for violation of the terms of parole for which he was convicted and sentenced. It may also be clarified that the petitioner has already undergone the sentence imposed upon him under the Excise Act as well as for violating the terms of parole.T Finally the High Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders according to law within one month from the receipt of the copy of the order.