Malook Singh vs State of Haryana

Bakhshish Kaur, J.

Heard.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. directing the respondents to consider his case for premature release in accordance with para 516B of the Punjab Jail Manual and instructions Annexure P1 regarding premature release of the convicts.

The petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment on January 23, 1989 by the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal under Section 302, I.P.C. Since then he is in custody.

The case of the petitioner for premature release was considered by the respondents, vide Annexure P2, but it was ordered that the premature release case will be reconsidered when he will complete 14 years'' actual sentence including under trial period and after earning at least six years'' remissions in the jail as per Para 2(a) of the government instructions dated 4.2.1993/17.7.1997.

The stand taken by the respondents in reply is that the case of the petitioner was considered vide Annexure P2. It is reiterated that he is presently not entitled to the premature release. Under para 3 of the reply it is pleaded that the matter regarding application of instructions for premature release case of convicts is pending in the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and stay was granted against the instructions prevailing at the time of conviction. According to the respondents, the instructions dated 4.2.1993, 17.6.1999 and 11.3.1999 are applicable to the petitioner for his premature release case.

To meet this argument, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the matter pending before the Supreme Court of India has been finally decided vide order September 2, 1999 by disposing of bunch of the petitions and after allowing the appeals, the State Governments have been directed to reconsider the cases of the life convicts, who fall under the purview of the Section 433A, Cr.P.C. in accordance with the correct legal position pointed out. It is also held that by earning remissions a life convict does not acquire a right to be released prematurely, but if the Government has framed any rule or made a scheme for early release of such convicts then these rules or schemes will have to be treated as guidelines for exercising its powers under Article 161 of the Constitution.

This petition is, therefore, accepted and the order, Annexure P2 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for premature release in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1998 (State of Haryana and others v. Balwan) 1999(4) RCR(Crl.) 65 and Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1998 State of Haryana and others v. Som Nath, decided on September 2, 1999 within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.