Shalwinder Singh vs State of Punjab and ors..

J.S. Sekhon, J.

Salwinder Singh petitioner has admittedly undergone 10 years two months and 22 days of actual imprisonment besides having earned 5 years 9 months and 27 days by way of remissions up till 28111990 as per averments in the return filed by the respondents. He is undergoing imprisonment for life under the order of the Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. The mercy petition filed by the petitioner for his premature release was declined by the concerned authority vide order dated. 19121990 (Annexure K. 1) mainly on the ground of misconduct of the petitioner while undergoing imprisonment in the jail. It was also taken into consideration that the other brothers of the petitioner can look after the aged father.

The petitioner challenged abovementioned order of the State Government, inter alia, on the ground that first jail offence having been committed were than 5 years earlier in point of time of the filing of this petition, it cannot operate as an impediment for all times to come to consider the premature release of the petitioner. Regarding the second jail offence, it is maintained that no regular enquiry or order or conviction was passed by the jail authorities, what to say of obtaining judicial appraisal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the first jail offence was committed on 1721986. The concerned authority has declined the mercy petition for premature release vide its order dated 19121990. Thus, it cannot be said that the abovereferred jail offence was wrongly taken into consideration by the concerned authority as by then five years had not expired. By now, admittedly five years had elapsed when the petitioner had committed a jail offence. The law is wellsettled on the point that the conduct of the prisoner resulting in conviction of jail offence would operate as impediment not for all times to come but at the most for five years. The observations of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990(1) All India. Criminal Law Reporter 609 can be safely referred in this regard. Similar view was taken by this Court in Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(2) Recent Criminal Reports 490. Thus, the jail offence committed by the petitioner on 1721986 no longer holds the field to offer any impediment for considering the premature release of the petitioner. Regarding the second jail offence allegedly committed by the petitioner on 9.101986, it transpires that there is no indication from the return filed by the respondentState or from the order Annexure R. 1 passed by the concerned authority that the petitioner was either convicted for that offence or that the judicial appraisal was taken before or after awarding the sentence. Consequently, that misconduct also cannot be taken into consideration.

In view of the factum that the petitioner was less than 20 years old at the time of commission of offence in this case and that he had already suffered more than 10 years of actual imprisonment although as per Government instructions Annexure P. 3. such like prisoners are required to undergo six years of actual imprisonment before considering their case for premature release, it is a fit case where the concerned authority should reconsider the mercy petition of the petitioner and dispose it of within 3 months of this order. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to be released on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, undertaking to surrender before the authorities in case of dismissal of his mercy petition.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.