Karnail Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

S.S. Grewal, J. (Oral)

This petition under Section 482 of the Code, of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India relates to grant of premature release to the petitioner, who was arrested in a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on October 12, 1981 and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the said offence on 3.9.1982.

According to the petitioner, he has already undergone more than 9 years and 8 months of actual sentence and earned remisions of six years .and eight months. It was further pleaded that. the petitioner filed mercy, petition under Article 161 of the Constitution of India on 26th December, It 1989. J. B. Garg, J. vide order dated 22nd of August, 1990 directed the State to consider the mercy petition of the petitioner within four months. ''The said mercy petition was declined by the State vide order Annexure P/6 dated 17.9.1991 on the basis of new instructions issued by the State Government dated 8th of July. 1991.

The allegations made in the petition have not been controverted in the return filed by the State. The main question which arises for determination in this case is as to whether the State Government was justified in applying the new instructions for considering the case for premature release of the petitioner, in view of specific directions issued by this Court while deciding the earlier petition on 22nd of August, 1990. The period specified in the said order was only upto 22.12.1990. The new instructions came into force on 8th of July, 1991 i.e. much after the period during which the State was directed to consider the mercy petition of the petitioner had elapsed. Under the new instructions, it is obligatory that the convict had undergone ten years of actual sentence before his case for grant of premature release can be considered by the State whereas under the old instructions which were applicable prior to 8th of July, 1991 the period of actual sentence in case of a convict who was less than 20 years of age was only six years whereas in case of other convicts who were above 20 years of age was 8 1/2 years.

In somewhat similar circumstances B. S. Nehra, J. vide his order dated 4th of December, 1991 in Zora Singh v. State of Punjab and another, in Criminal Misc. No. 11317M of 1991, directed the State to consider the case of convict for premature release in the light of instructions/guidelines issued by it which were prevalent prior to 18.5.1991, i.e. the period upto which this Court had directed the State to consider the case for premature release of the said convict. The aforesaid authority is fully applicable and covers the case of the petitioner as well.

For the foregoing reasons, the State is again directed to consider the case for grant of premature release of the petitioner on the basis of old instructions i. e. instructions which were prevalent prior to 8th of July, 1991 within a period of three months from today. This petition is accordingly allowed.