Tara Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

K.S. Bhalla, J.

Petitioner Tara Singh is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Patiala under the orders of Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. He was convicted and sentenced on September 15, 1979 i.e. after the enforcement of section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) His appeal was also dismissed by this Court. Through present petition he has prayed, for his premature release mainly relying on the instructions of the, Government issued in the month of August, 1986 (Annexure P/4 A).

The matter regarding premature release of an accused convicted after the enforcement of section 433A of the Code was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ranbir Singh Versus State of Haryana etc, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 268; Crl. W.P No. 628 of 1985 decided on May 2, 1986. It was decided in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in Maru Ram etc. v. Union of India AIR 1980 S.C. 2147. It was held therein that the correct interpretation of Maru Ram''s case (supra) is that section 433A of the Code has a sway over para 516B of the Punjab Jail Manual or similar other executive instructions regarding the early release of the life convicts. According to Marce Ram''s case (supra) these convicts are a class apart and cannot invoke the aid of the instructions incomptiable with section 433A of the Code issued by the Central or State Government prior to December 18, 1978. However, wide powers of executive clemency were also accepted in the said case and it was observed that section 433A of the Code by no means precludes the state from working the same remission scheme, which seems to be fairly reasonable meaning thereby that executive instructions with regard to remissions were possible even after December 18, 1987 irrespective of section 433A of the Code.

Allegedly Punjab Government have issued instructions and guidelines even after enforcement of section 433A of the Code on the subject, it is admitted in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents that the State Government had issued instructions dated August 21, 1986, but according to the respondent State the case of the petitioner is not covered under those instructions. Those instructions are as follows :

"Government have decided to release the following categories of life convicts

(1) All prisoners who are undergoing life imprisonment and who are above the age of 70 years and have undergone at least 51/2 years of actual imprisonment provided they were convicted before 18.12.1978 and their conduct during imprisonment has been satisfactory.

(2) All infirm prisoners who were incapacitated by illness provided their release is supported by the recommendations of a committee of three doctors of the district concerned. The above decision of (1&2) will, however, not be applicable to those life convicts whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment on mercy petition.

(3) The individual cases along with relevant documents viz. rolls of the convicts etc. may kindly be sent to Government immediately for issuing formal orders u/s 432 Cr.P.C. In addition, Government have decided to grant special permission to all prisoners confined in Punjab Jails as on 20.8.1986. Necessary orders in this behalf are being issued separately."

The petitioner contends that his case falls under second category in the above instructions. A bare reading of the instructions would show that the date of conviction of a prisoner is significant only for the life convicts of first category. No such restriction has been imposed regarding the prisoners of second category. This category consists of all infirm prisoners who were incapacitated by illness provided their release is supported by recommendation of a committee of three doctors of the district concerned and provided they do not fall within category of life convicts whose death sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment on mercy petition. Consideration of cases of premature release on mercy petitions under Article 161 of the Constitution is not disputed on behalf of the respondent either. It is thus clear that After the enforcement of section 433A of the Code a life convict can make a mercy petition to the Governor of Punjab for premature release.

In the instant case the detenu has already made such a mercy petition and it is stated in para 21 of the written statement that the same was being got completed and shall be considered on merits within reasonable time as and when it is received complete in all respects. In the given premises particularly when the question of liberty of a citizen is involved the State is required to act promptly and cannot be expected to delay matters for indefinite period on technical grounds. Therefore, it is hereby ordered that mercy petition of the petitioner shall be decided within three months. In case the mercy petition is not decided within three months from today, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. Thereafter if the petition is eventually rejected the prisoner shall surrender to the bail bonds before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur on receipt of intimation from the State Government. He will, however, be at liberty to challenge the validity of the rejection order through appropriate proceedings. The writ petition is disposed of in these terms.