Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mehar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 11 March, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1994CRILJ1166
ORDER Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.
1. Mehar Singh was tried for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code along with other accused and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 2-12-1983 rendered by Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 15-12-1982 and on the day he was convicted his age was described as 19 years. He had undergone 9 years actual sentence and had earned remission exceeding five years. He enjoyed paroles and furloughs on 8 occasions and was never found guilty of any jail offence. In view of the guidelines Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4 issued by the State Government, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 161 of the Constitution of India for grant of premature release. His petition Annexure P-5 was not considered for a sufficient long time, which led him to file, Criminal Writ Petition No. 548 of 1990. This petition was decided on 6-11-1990 whereby the State Government was directed to consider the premature release case of the petitioner within three months. The State Government considered his case and rejected the same on 8-11-1990 vide order copy of which was annexure P.7. This order was assailed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2378-M of 1991. During the pendency of this petition, the State Government informed the petitioner that his case was again considered and rejected vide order copy of which was Annexure P-8. The main ground for rejection of the case as mentioned in the order is as follows :--
Mehar Singh convict has not undergone the requisite period of actual sentence as stipulated in the instructions issued on 8-7-1991 and as such he is not eligible to have his case considered at this stage.
2. The petitioner alleged that order Annexure P.8 was wholly illegal and arbitrary. His case was to be considered within a period of three months as per directions of this Court which was to expire on 6-2-1991 and the instructions issued by the State Government on 8-7-1991 could not be enforced against him. He had undergone the requisite period of sentence as per instructions Annexures P-2 to P-4. His case was to be considered in the light of these instructions. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his premature release.
3. In the return filed by the respondents it was admitted that the petitioner had undergone 8 years 5 months and 12 days substantive sentence and had earned remission for 5 years 18 days as on 12-6-1991. His case for premature release was considered and rejected keeping in view the fresh policy instructions of the Government vide which the earlier instructions in respect of remission of sentence of life convicts were superseded.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
5. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13-9-1991 Annexure P-8 vide which his case for premature release was rejected on the ground that the instructions issued on 8-7-1991 were applicable to his case and he was not eligible to be considered for his premature release as he had not undergone the requisite period of sentence. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of his conviction, the petitioner was of the age of 19 years. Being less than 20 years of age as per instructions Annexure P-4 his case for premature release was to be taken up after he had completed actual sentence in jail for a period of six years as he was a juvinile offender. It was urged that vide latest instructions Annexure P-9 para 516-B of the Punjab Jail Mannual has been amended and at present the case of a minor who is less than 18 years of age is to be considered after he had undergone actual imprisonment of 8 years but before the coming into the operations of these instructions minor or juvenile was to be considered that person who was less than 20 years of age. Para 516-B of the Punjab Jail Mannual provides that the case of life convict who was of 20 years or above was required to be considered on the completion of 14 years sentence including remission and the case of other male convict i.e. a convict who was under the age of 20 years at the time of the commission of the offence and of a female prisoner was required to be considered on the completion of 10 years sentence including remission. In view of this provision of the Punjab Jail Mannual, the petitioner is eligible to be considered for premature release if his case is governed by the instructions Annexures P-2 to P-4.
6. The main question for determination in this case is as to whether the State Government was justified in applying the new instructions contained in Annexure P-9 for considering the case for premature release of the petitioner, when specific instructions were issued by this Court to decide his case within three months of the date of order passed on 6-11-1990. The case of the petitioner was to be decided by 6-2-1991. The instructions Annexure P-9 came into force on 8-7-1991 i.e. much after the period. During which the State Government was directed to decide the case of the petitioner. Had the State Government decided the case of the petitioner within stipulated time as per directions given by this Court then it would have been considered in the light of guidelines prevalent at that time and not in accordance with the new instructions. By delaying the decision the respondent cannot invoke new guidelines for rejecting the mercy petition of the petitioner as the same are detrimental to his interest. B.S. Nehra, J. in a similar situation directed the State to reconsider the case of a convict for premature release in the light of the instructions issued by it which were prevalent at the time when this Court directed the State to consider the premature release of the said convict. This case was further relied upon in the case of Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab, 1992 (1) RCR 227. Since there was specific direction by this Court to decide the case of the petitioner by 6-2-1991 his case could not be rejected on 13-9-1991 on the ground that he was not eligible to have his case considered as per instructions Annexure P-9.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the State is directed to consider the case for grant of premature release to the petitioner on the basis of the instructions which were applicable prior to 6-2-1991. The case of the petitioner will be decided within a period of three months from today.