AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 368 wordsS.S. Grewal, J.
This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India relates to grant of appropriate writ, order or direction to the State Government to consider mercy petition made by the petitioner for premature release within the shortest possible time.
Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner after his arrest on 29.4.1979 was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot on 13.11.1979. He has already undergone 9 years 9 months actual sentence; besides earning remissions of about seven years.
Admittedly the petition has been convicted after 18th of December, 1978, and the instructions for premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution have to be kept in view for deciding the case of premature release.
On behalf of the State it has mainly been contended that under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, the power of the State to grant mercy is not justiciable and no direction can be issued to the State for consideration even for early disposal of the mercy petition.
In the instant case, admittedly, the application moved by the petitioner for his premature release is with the State Government, and the same is pending since 14th February, 1989. It is for the State Government to exercise its power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and to grant whatever relief it deems fit to the petitioner. However, the State has to make up its mind and decide the application for premature release within a reasonable time. I am supported in my view by the latest Supreme Court authority in Sadhu and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, Criminal Writ Petition No. 651 of 1986, decided on 20th of April, 1987 wherein the State Government was directed to consider application for premature release of the detenu within four months from the date of receipt of such application.
For the foregoing reasons, the State is directed to consider the application for premature release of the petitioner within a period of three months, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this Court for deciding the application.
JUDGMENT accordingly.