Major Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J.

In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked for grant of premature release to the detenu, under Article 161 of the Constitution.

In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the detenu after his arrest on 3181979, was convicted by Sessions Judge, Ludhiana under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on 23rd February, 1980. According to the detenu, be had already undergone actual sentence of 9 years, 1 month and 1 day, which, include the period of detention before conviction of the extent of 5 months 24 days. It is also alleged that the detenu earned remissions for a period of 6 years, 5 months and 4 days, and, after deduction of period of parole he has already undergone sentence of 14 years, 9 months and 27 days. Since the detenu was convicted after coming into force of Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Cede'') vide Amendment Act No. 45 of 1978, which, came into force on 18th December, 1978, the detenu is entitled for grant of premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution). It was next pleaded that his case for grant of premature release was wrongly rejected by the State Government arbitrarily, in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The State in its reply admitted that the detenu after his conviction on 23rd February, 1990 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code has under gone actual sentence for 8 years, 8 months and 15 days including under trial period of 5 months, 21 days), upto 17th May, 1988, and that he also earned remission for 6 years, 5 months and 10 days. It was also admitted that the mercy petition filed by the detenu was forwarded to the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, and, the District Level authorities. The mercy petition was duly considered by the State Government on 23rd September, 1988 and was rejected. The order in respect thereof (Annexure P7) was duly served upon the detenu by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana, on 1st October, 1988.

Counsel for the parties were heard.

Perusal of the order of rejection of mercy petition of the detenu (Annexure P7) reveals that apart from other considerations, conviction of the detenu regarding jail offence committed on 2nd January. 1985 was taken into consideration for rejecting his plea for grant of premature release. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 863 of 1.988, filed by the present detenu, the jail punishment awarded in respect of commission or offence by him on 2nd January, 1985, was sift aside by A. P. Chowdhri, J. vide order dated 5th December, 1988. Thus, the aforesaid conviction of the detenu concerning commission of jail offence on 2nd January, 1985, could not be legally considered, while deciding the case for grant of premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution by the State Government, and the matter certainly needs reconsideration.

Apart from that, normally, the benefit of premature release to a convict is denied in cases of intractably savage delinquents. In view of the authority in case Maru Ram and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 2147, Besides, guidelines already laid down by the State of Punjab for considering the case of grant of premature release of the prisoners, too have to be considered. The impugned order concerning rejection of earlier mercy petition by the State does not indicate that all the relevant considerations were taken into consideration.

For the foregoing reasons, the State is directed to reapply its mind and reconsider the mercy petition concerning grant of premature release of the detenu, keeping in view the aforesaid observations as well as all the relevant instructions already issued by the State Government within a period of four months from today.

This petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.