Gurmail Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

Pritpal Singh, J.—The petitioner Gurmail Singh was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on November 3, 1980. His contention is that he is an infirm prisoner and on this account a committee of three doctors of the district has recommended his premature release in accordance with the instructions issued by the State Government on August 21, 1986 (Annexure P. 1). In his writ petition he has prayed that direction be issued to the respondent State of Punjab to decide his case of premature release in the light of the aforesaid instructions.

The instructions relied upon by the petitioner are as follows :

"The Government have decided to release the following categories of life convicts :

(i) All prisoners who are undergoing life imprisonment and who are above the age of 70 years and have undergone at least 51/2 years of actual imprisonment provided they were convicted before 181278 and their conduct during imprisonment has been satisfactory.

(ii) All infirm prisoners who were incapacitated by illness provided their release is supported by the recommendation of a committee of three doctors of the district concerned.

The above decision of (i) and (ii) will however, not be applicable to those life convicts whose death sentence have been commuted to life imprisonment on mercy petition."

According to the petitioner his case is covered by the second category mentioned in the instructions. His grievance is that the State Government is not dealing with his case in the light thereof.

The respondent Punjab State has pleaded that the instructions (Annexure P. 1) are inapplicable to the petitioner as be was convicted and sentenced after December 18, 1978.

I have already held earlier in CrI Writ Petition No. 153 of 1987, Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab and another), 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 324, decided on May 8, 1987, that the date of conviction of a prisoner is pertinent only with regard to the first category of life convicts. No such restriction has been placed in premature release cases pertaining to the second category of prisoners. This category consists of infirm prisoners who are incapacitated by illness and whose premature release is recommended by a committee of three doctors of the concerned district. No condition has been laid down for the release of this category of prisoners that they should have been convicted before December 17, 1978.

Consequently, the respondent State of Punjab is directed to consider the premature release case of the petition in the light of the aforesaid instructions (Annexure P. 1) within two months from today.