Narinder Singh @ Kala vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Narinder Singh petitioner was tried for an offence of murder and was sentenced to imprisonment for life on 5.2.1982 by Sessions Judge, Amritsar, After his conviction in the murder case, he was also sentenced under section 224 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 7.2.1990 pased by Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar and was awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. This sentence was to run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life. The petitioner had undergone more than 9 years actual sentence apart from 1 year 6 months under trial period. He earned remissions exceeding 5 years 6 months. He did not commit any jail offence and maintained a satisfactory conduct in Jail. In accordance with the guidelines issued by the State Government the petitioner moved a petition for grant of premature release on 8.10.90 and this petition was received by respondent No. 1 but case of the petitioner was not considered for a sufficiently long time. As a result, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No 14616M of 1990 which was put up for final hearing on 18.12.90 and the following order was passed :

"The Ld. counsel for the petitioner stated at the bar that the petitioner under Article 161 of the Constitution of India for premature release of the petitioner had already been presented to the Secy. Home Department on 8.10.90 and that the case of the petitioner has not been so far decided. The respondents are directed to dispose the mercy petition of Narinder Singh convict, within four months. In case respondents want any documents or judgment relevant for disposal of the mercy petition, it would be open to them to ask the detenu or his counsel (Shri V.K. Jindal) Advocate, to supply the same. This petition is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be sent to all the respondents for compliance."

December 18, 1990,

Sd/ S.S. Grewal, J."

The premature release case of the petitioner was required to be decided by 18.4.1991. He was not released and the presumption was that his case was considered and rejected. He was deprived of his liberty without following the procedure prescribed by law. So the petitioner moved this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing directions holding that further detention of the convict had become illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

In reply to the petition, it was admitted that as on 31.8.1991, the petitioner had undergone actual sentence for 10 years 7 months 16 days and had earned remissions for 6 years 9 months 22 days. He was also allowed parole for 4 months 6 days. It was contended that he committed jail offence on 5.5.1989 when he remained absent from jail for 5 months 5 days. Thus his conduct could not be said to be satisfactory. It was further pleaded that premature release case of the petitioner was considered according to the instructions dated 8.7.1991 and was rejected on 26.9.1991.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

A perusal of the order vide which the premature case of the petitioner was rejected as detailed in the reply filed by the respondent shows that the petitioner had completed the requisite period of sentence for become eligible for consideration of his case but he did not maintain satisfactory conduct in jail. He remained absent from jail from 5.5.1989 to 10.11.1989 i.e. for a total period of 5 months 5 days. He was convicted and sentenced for this offence by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar on 7.2.1990 to under go Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. As per this order the only ground for rejection of the case of the petitioner is that after he was released on parole, he did not surrender before the Jail authorities on the required day and thus remained absent from jail for 5 months 5 days. For this offence he was convicted and sentenced and he had already undergone the sentence imposed upon him. Section 45 of the Prisons Act, 1894 defines the prison offences and overstaying parole period is not covered by the offences mentioned therein. As the petitioner did not surrender himself before the Jail Authorities on the required day he was tried for an offence under section 9 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. Under this Section any prisoner who does not surrender himself on the expiry of the period for which he is released on parole is liable to be arrested and punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to two years or with fine or both. The present petitioner has undergone the sentence awarded to him for his overstaying the period of parole. Case for premature release of prisoner is to be submitted through Inspector General of Prisons for orders of the State Government in accordance with para 516 (b) of the Jail Manual and a note to this para makes it clear that for the purpose of preparing the rolls of the prisoners under the Rules, sentence awarded to a prisoner for an offence committed while in prison or during suspension of sentence will not be taken into account. In view of the provisions of law the order rejecting the case of premature release of the petitioner is not valid and cannot be sustained. The instructions issued on 8.7.1991 are also not applicable to the case of the petitioner as according to the direction given by this court his case was to be decided before 18.4.1991.

As a result, the respondent is directed to decide the case of the petitioner for premature release in the light of the instructions issued by it which were prevalent upto 18th April, 1991. The State Government is allowed three months time from the date of the receipt of this order to decide the case by passing a speaking order in this regard. The sentence awarded to the petitioner for his absence from jail will not be a bar to the consideration of his case.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.