NIRMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, as well as, Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 3171 of 1988 (Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab and others), 2172 of 1988 (Kirpal Singh v. State and others), 2173 of 1988 (Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 2175 of 1988 (Asha Rani v. State of Punjab and others), 2176 of 1988 (Lajwanti v. State of Punjab and others), 2210 of 1988 (Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab and others), 215 of 1988 (Hakam Singh v. State of Punjab and others), 2362 of 1998 (Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab and others) 2363 of 1988 (Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab and others), 1715 of 1988 (Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab and others), 1832 of 1988 (Gurmel Singh v. State of Punjab and others), 1833 of 1988 (Baghel Singh v. State of Punjab and others), 1835 of 1998 (Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab and others), 2084 of 1988 (Remesh Chand v. State of Punjab), 2085 of 1988 (Puran Singh State of Punjab and others) and 40 of 1989 (Dhram Singh v. State of Punjab and others), shall be disposed of by one judgment as common questions of law and fact are involved. In all these petitions extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked for consideration of premature release of the petitioners under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, as the case of premature release of individual prisoners involved in these petitions had been declined by the State Government on various grounds.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , prisoners in all these cases were convicted after insertion of Section 433-A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') vide Amendment Act No. 45 of 1978, which, came into force on 18th December, 1978. After coming into force of Section 433-A, controversy arose whether period of 14 years of imprisonment includes remissions earned by a prisoner because of his good conduct of Jail, or the same can be commuted, or remitted on other grounds covered by the Government instructions. As per majority view in case Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147, conclusions were formulated, out of which following would be relevant for determining matters in controversy in the present petitions :-

(3.) BESIDES appointing State Level Committees to expedite the procedure for consideration of cases concerning premature release of the convicts vide instructions Annexure P1, it was directed that only those convicts would be eligible for premature release, who, have completed a requisite actual sentence as per earlier policy and who have satisfactory conduct in jail and whose cases District Level Committee recommends.