Nirmal Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

Crl. Misc. allowed.

Shri Nirmal Singh has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 161 of the Constitution of India praying that he has exceeded the prescribed sentence required for the life convicts covered under columnE of the instructions dated 8.7.1991 and as such he is eligible for consideration of premature release. The petitioner has alleged that his detention is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :

Shri Nirmal Singh was tried and convicted in case FIR No. 148 dated 27.9.1989 registered in Police Station Ropar under sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. During the course of investigation he was arrested on 27.9.1989 and was convicted and sentenced on 19.4.1993. As per the allegations of the petitioner he served 8 years 7 months and 29 days actual as on 26.5.1998. He earned remissions of 6 years 7 months and 6 days as on that day and in this manner his total sentence is 15 years 3 months and 5 days. The case of the petitioner is that he has qualified for consideration for premature release because he has served 14 years of sentence whether actual or with remissions. In other words, the petitioner wants to take the benefit of full remissions granted by the State Government from time to time i.e. for the period of 6 years 7 months and 6 days irrespective of the fact that he had not served 10 years actual sentence. The sole point in these circumstances would be whether the petitioner is permitted to take the full benefit of the remissions.

An endeavour was made by Shri Trikha to convince this Court with the help of the Jail Manual that if the entire benefit of the remissions is not granted to the petitioner, then in that eventuality the period of excess remissions will become a waste paper. The counsel has also relied upon the provisions of Section 433 Cr.P.C. which lays down that the appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person sentenced, commute (a)...(b) a sentence of imprisonment for life; for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for fine. The counsel submits that in subclause (b) of Section 433 Cr.P.C. word `sentence'' has been mentioned and there is no mention of actual sentence. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is fallacious and is not acceptable to this Court. The instructions Annexure P1 dated 8.7.1991 though issued under Sections 432, 433 and 433A of the Cr.P.C. but this Court cannot forget the fact that these have also been issued under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. Rather these provisions have only been mentioned in the subject of the instructions. But the policy of the State Government which has the force of law is virtually issued under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and the State Government has the parallel jurisdiction to issue such instructions besides the provisions of Section 433 Cr.P.C. The case of the petitioner is covered by clause (c) of the letter dated 8.7.1991. According to this, the petitioner, who is an adult is supposed to undergo actual sentence of ten years and with remissions 14 years. When a person is convicted for life, he has to serve for life. The State Government in order to give the benefit to a person who has been convicted for life, has laid down the policy decision and the decision is very rational. The case of a life convict can be considered for premature release as per the instructions dated 8.7.1991 is according to the Government he has served ten years actual and 14 years with remissions. This is the minimum requirement as per the policy of the State Government. If the convict earns State remissions even to the extent of 14 years but if he has not served ten years of actual sentence, he will not be entitled to consider for premature release. The serving of ten years actual sentence is must irrespective of the fact how much remissions a convict has earned given by the State Government. In the present case Shri Nirmal Singh petitioner has not so for served ten years of actual sentence and, therefore, he cannot be considered for premature release irrespective of the fact that he has earned remissions to the extent of eight years. The petition stands dismissed.