Gurdev Singh vs State of Punjab .

Pritpal Singh, J.

The Petitioner, Gurdev Singh, is undergoing life imprisonment. He has filed this petition for the issuance of a writ in the nature or habeas corpus on the ground that he has already undergone more than 81 years of actual sentence and 14 years of total sentence including remissions and that his case for premature release has been illegally rejected by the respondentState of Punjab.

The petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Writ Petition No 79 or 1984, alleging therein that his case for premature release was previously rejected four times on account of two jail punishments In that writ petition, following order was passed on 5th or April, 1984 :

"Mr. Jindal contends that the case of the petitioner for premature release was rejected 4 times on account of two jail punishments and the last rejection was on March 1, 1984. Mr. Keer. counsel for the State, says that at the time of next consideration the two jail punishments will not be taken into consideration. The State is directed to consider the premature release case within 3 months from today. With these observations. the petition is dismissed."

In accordance with this order, the petitioner''s case for premature release was to be considered by the respondent before 5th of July, 1984.

In reply, the State of Punjab have filed an affidavit of the Inspector General of prisons, Punjab. in which it is stated that the petitioner''s case could not be considered within the prescribed period of three months because of disturbed conditions in the State and because the requisite reports of the district authorities had not been received in time It is submitted that the petitioner''s case was finally considered on 20th of July. 1984, and it was rejected as the district authorities did not recommend his premature release. It is pleaded that now the petitioner''s case will be reconsidered on the expiry of one year from the date of rejection.

The learned petitioner''s counsel has vehemently contended that rejection of the petitioner''s case on 20th of July, 1984, is illegal and arbitrary. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State, on the other hand, is that there is no flaw, legal or otherwise, in the order of rejection.

This Court would not interfere with the powers exercised by the Government under Para 516B of the Punjab Jail Manual unless the power of remission vested in the Government has not been exercised in a fair, impartial and uniform manner. Vide Memo No. 28746JJ17814 dated 12th of May, 1977, the Punjab Government issued instructions under Para 516B of the Punjab Jail Manual stating that the case of premature release of a prisoner undergoing life imprisonment has to be considered when he completes 8 1/2 years'' substantive imprisonment and 14 years'' imprisonment including remissions. In these instructions the procedure which has to be adopted for considering the premature release cases is also laid down. It is provided that the Superintendent of Jail would forward the case alongwith the briefsummary of the prisoner''s jail record, and his own recommendations, to the convener of the district level committee constituted led by the Government two months before the date when the case becomes due for consideration. The convener will thereafter circulate that information amongst the members of the district level committee. The committee will then consider the case and forward the same with its recommendations to the Inspector General of Prisons for onward transmission to the Government for decision. In the present case this procedure has been scrupulously followed by the authorities. It is stated by Mr. D.S. Keer, counsel for the Punjab State that the district level committee after considering the petitioner''s case recommended on 7th of May, 1984, that the petitioner be not released prematurely for the present The police as well as the Panchayat also opposed the petitioners'' premature release in their recommendations dated 3rd of May, 1984. Quite clearly, therefore, the decision of the respondentState rejecting the petitioner''s case for premature release on 20th of July, 1984, is based on the recommendations of the district level committee, the Panchayat and the police authorities, It, therefore, cannot be said that the Government has exercised its power arbitrarily.

In the previous orders of this Court dated 5th of April, 1984, passed in the earlier writ petition of the petitioner, it was directed that the two jail punishments would not be taken into consideration while deciding the premature release case of the petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the State that while rejecting the petitioner''s case on 20th of July, 1984, the said jail punishments were not considered and as mentioned above the petitioner''s case was rejected having been opposed by the Panchayat, the police and the district level committee.

The learned petitioner''s counsel submitted that the order of rejection of the petitioner''s case is bad in law because the Government did not afford an opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation before his case was rejected This contention has no merit because it is not provided either in para 516B of the Manual or in the aforesaid instructions issued by the Punjab Government that it would be necessary to call for the representation of the prisoner before rejecting his case. The petitioner''s counsel cited R. Ragupathy and others. v. State of Tamil Nadu and others. 1984 Cri. LJ. (N.O.C.) 117 at page 41 in support of his contention. However this judgment of the Madras High Court is in the context of Tamil Nadu Prisons and Reformatory Manual and is, therefore. irrelevant for the decision of the present case. The counsel also cited Krishna Nair alias Manian v. State of Kerala 1983 (2) Crimes 596. This judgment is equally irrelevant because it scrutinised Kerala Prison Rules. 1958, which are inapplicable to the case in hand. A judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwat Saran & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. 1983 (1) C. L.R. 504 was also referred by the petitioner''s counsel. that case, the committee appointed to report on the conduct of prisoners had recommended the release of a particular prisoner after taking into consideration his behaviour inside the jail and other factors. Despite this recommendation, the State Government rejected the premature release case of the petitioner. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that there were no reasons why the recommendations of the committee could not be accepted. Taking this view, the prisoner was ordered to be released forthwith. I am unable to comprehend as to how does this judgment help the petitioner. In the present case, the district level committee in its recommendations opposed the premature release of the petitioner. The State Government relying upon this. recommendation rejected the petitioner''s case. It is manifest that the judgment of the Supreme Court has no application to the facts of the instant case.

For the reasons mentioned above, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.