DHANNA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India relates to grant of appropriate writ, order or direction to the State Government to consider the case for grant of pre-mature release to the petitioner.

(2.) FACTS relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner after his arrest on 16.5.1974 was convicted under Sections 302, 275 and 559 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, by Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 4.12.1974. He has already undergone detention for a period of 18 years 10 months and 2 days, which, include remissions earned by him for a period for 9 years and 5 months. Even though the petitioner is entitled to get his case for grant of pre-mature release considered by the State Government, his mercy petition in this regard has not so far been considered, and the State Government has acted wrongly in enforcing instructions issued in the year 1971 while considering cases for grant of pre-mature release of the prisoners. According to the petitioner, his detention was illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and, was entitled to get his case for premature release considered by the State to set him at liberty without any formal order of the State under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or, in the alternative to get his case for grant of pre-mature release to be considered by the State Government at the earliest.

(3.) SINCE the petitioner has been convicted by the trial Court before December 18, 1978, when Section 433-A came into force he shall be entitled to the benefits accruing to him from the Remission Scheme or short-sentencing projects as if Section 433-A did not stand in his way in view of the authority reported as Maru Ram and others v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147. The grievance of the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner has not been considered by the State from that angle. The State in its reply has mentioned that case would be re-considered in November, 1988. In this view of the matter and in view of the latest authority, reported as Sadhu and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, the State Government is directed to reconsider the case of pre-mature released of the petitioner within four months from today, in the light of observations made above, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this Court, if so advised. Petition dismissed.