Kishan Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J. (Oral)

Shri Kishan Singh son of Shri Ikatar Singh resident of village and Post Office Talwandi, Police Station Bhadaur District Sangrur has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the impugned order dated 29.11.1996/20.12.1996 Annexure P11 and the petitioner has further sought the direction of this Court for the respondents that he be released prematurely.

The admitted facts are that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 19.2.1977. Earlier the petitioner applied for premature release and he wanted to take the benefit of Instructions dated 21.8.1996 Annexure P2 pleading that he was an infirm prisoner and was incapacitated and this fact has also been testified by a committee of the three doctors of the district concerned and, therefore, he was entitled to the benefit of premature release. This prayer of the petitioner was contested by the State on the plea that on the relevant date the petitioner was on bail. Vide order dated 18.9.1996 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 21119M of 1995 the defence of the respondent was rejected and direction was given to the respondents to reconsider the matter of the petitioner regarding premature release ignoring the fact that the petitioner was not in jail at the relevant time. Thereafter the impugned order Annexure P11 has been passed and the relevant portion of the order is contained in para No. 6 which is requoted as follows :

"6. Whereas, as stated in para 4 above the Hon''ble High Court directed the State Government to consider the case of the convict on medical ground, ignoring the fact that he was not in jail on 20.8.1986.

Accordingly, be becomes eligible for consideration on medical ground under those instructions. However, the convict Kishan Singh S/o Iktar Singh is involved in double murder which is more serious than an ordinary crime, so his case is to be viewed differently from those who are involved in single murder or an ordinary crime. Imprisonmentforlife convicts, involved in double murder have not been released by competent authorities earlier also. So this person also does not deserve any special sympathy and must undergo full term awarded by Court."

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the stand taken up by the respondents this time is totally untenable because the relevant instructions which were applicable on the date of the conviction of the petitioner did not speak of the fact that the case of a convict would be rejected in case he has committed double murder. On the contrary Shri Brar, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab, relied upon the instructions Annexure R3 dated 18.12.1996 and submits that as per the policy of the Government the double murder is a disqualification for a convict to be released prematurely.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the stands taken by the respondent vide Annexure R3 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law in view of the date of conviction of the petitioner. As per the instructions dated 21.8.1986 admittedly the petitioner was declared infirm by the committee of three doctors of the district concerned and he fulfiled the requisite criteria laid down by the Government itself while exercising the powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. In para No. 12 of the petition there is a specific allegation made by the petitioner that in similar situated circumstances the Government have already released several persons and in these circumstances the petitioner cannot be distinguished and any action taken by respondent in discarding the case of the petitioner will be violative. The submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner carries weight and is acceptable to this Court. The instructions Annexure R3 can be applied by the Government prospectively and not retrospectively. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner is an ''intractably savage delinquent'' and his case is covered under that category. In this view of the matter this petition is allowed by quashing the order Annexure P11 and fresh directions are given to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his premature release within two months from the receipt of the copy of this order and by rejecting the defence under the garb of instructions Annexure R3.

The petition stands disposed of.