Gurbachan Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J.

This Crl. Writ Petition as well as C.W.P. No. 1238 of 1989 re. Kashmir Singh v. State of Punjab relate to grant of appropriate writ, order or direction to the State Government to considered mercy petition made by individual detenus for premature release within the shortest possible time. As common questions of law and fact are involved, both these petitions shall be disposed of by one order.

Facts relevant for the disposal of the present case are that the petitioner''s son Raj Singh was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, on 10.10.1981. By now the detenu Raj Singh had undergone 8 years 3 months actual sentence. Since Raj Singh detenu was less than 20 years of age at the time of his conviction so under the Government Instructions he was required to undergo only five years actual sentence before his case for premature release could be considered, under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, Raj Singh detenu had completed minimum period of 81/2 years of actual sentence, and, his conduct in the jail being satisfactory, his case was recommended by the State Government Level Committee as well as by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur, to the State Government and the said petition was received in the office of Deputy Secretary (Home) Punjab on 3.3.1989 and the said petition has not so far been considered by the State Government.

Admittedly, the detenus in both the aforesaid writ petitions were convicted after 18th of December, 1978, as such instructions for the premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution have to be kept in view, for deciding their cases for premature release.

On behalf of the State it was mainly contended that under Article 161 of the Constitution of India the power of the State to grant mercy is not justiciable, and, as such no direction can be issued to the State for consideration, even, for the early disposal of the mercy petition.

Admittedly, applications for grant of premature release, filed by the detenus in both the aforesaid writ petitions are pending with the State Government since 13.3.1989. It is for the State Government to exercise its powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India so as to grant whatever relief it deems fit, to the individual detenus. However, the State has to make up its mind and decide the applications for grant of premature release, moved by the detenu 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 April, 1987, wherein the State Government was directed to consider the application for grant of premature release of the petition, 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 detenus in both the aforesaid criminal writ petitions, within a period of four months, failing which the detenus shall be at liberty to move this Court for seeking further appropriate remedy. Both these petitions are decided accordingly.

JUDGMENT accordingly.