Balwinder Singh vs The State of Punjab and Others

P.K. Jain, J.—Balwinder Singh, a life convict, confined in Central Jail, Amritsar, has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''the Code'') read with Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking his pre-mature release.

The necessary facts for the disposal of this petiton are that the petitioner along with four others was tried and convicted for the offence under Sections 312/149, Indian Penal Code, on two counts and sentenced to life imprisonment by judgment dated 14-3-1975. His conviction and sentence were upheld by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. By the time of the institution of this petition, the petitioner has already undergone more than 8 years 6 months actual sentence and more than 14 years sentence including remissions. His three co-accused, namely Joginder Singh, Mohinder Singh and Karma, who were also similarly convicted and sentenced, have already been released by the respondents. The ease for premature release of the petitioner was also initiated but the same has been rejected by the respondnts by order dated 4-6-1996 (Annexure R. 1/T). It has been alleged in the present petition that the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for his premature release on irrelevant consideration, that any punishment imposed upon the petitioner during the suspension of his sentence orduring the period of parole is not to be considered for the purposes of Section 432 of the Code read with para 516 of the Punjab Jail Manual, and that the respondents cannot discriminate the petitioner from his three co-accused who have already been released.

In their return, the respondents have not disputed the factual position. It has been admitted that the case of the petitioner for his premature release is to be considered under the guidelines prescribed in para 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual read with the instructions of 1971 issued by the Government. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner has already undergone more than 81/2 years'' actual sentence and more than 14 years sentence including remissions.

The only ground of opposition is that the petitioner, while on parole, absconded for a period of 3 years 10 months and 20 days i.e. from 29-11 -1989 to 19-10-1993 for which he was convicted u/s 9 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 months by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by judgment dated 18-11-1993, and that the petitioner had been convicted in 2 cases under the Exercise Act registered against him while he was on bail during the pendency of the appeal against his conviction and sentence. It has been stated that due to these reasons, the competent authority rejected the case of the petitioner for premature release.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

Shri V.K. Jindal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the note appended to para 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual expressly provides that the sentence awarded to a prisoner for an offence committed while in prison or during the suspension of sentence will not be taken into account for considering the case of life convict for his premature release. Thus, it has been argued by the learned counsel that the competent authority acted in violation of the express instructions contained in para 516-B of the Jail Manual and consequently Section 432 of the Code. Reliance has been placed upon certain decisions of this Court in Lila Singh v. State of Punjab 1988 (1) RCR 28, Subhash v. State of Haryana 1994 (3) RCR 489 and Joga Singh v. State of Haryana 1995 (3) RCR 151.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner has no vested right for his premature release and it is in the discretion of the competent authority to consider the case of each convict on merits, that the conduct of the petitioner while on parole as well as during the period of suspension of his sentence was of such a nature that the competent authority did not find it fit to order the premature release of the petitioner.

I have carefully considered the respective arguments. It is not disputed that the case of the petitioner for his premature release is to be considered u/s 432 of the Code, where under the guidelines contained in para 516B of the Punjab Jail Manual have been issued. It is also not disputed that the said para is to be read with the instructions issued in this regard in the year 1971 by the State Government. The note appended to para 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual reads as under: --

NOTE: -- For the purposes of preparing the rolls of prisoners under the above rules sentence awarded to a prisoner for an offence committed while in prison or during suspension of sentence will not be taken into account.

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 disputed that under the instructions dated 6-8-1971 issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 432 of the Code, the case of a life convict for his premature release is to be considered after he has actually undergone 8 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 presentcase. 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.

As a result of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 4-6-1996 (Annexure R. 1/T) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his premature release in view of the observations made above within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy if this order.