Ranganath Misra, J. - (1.) These are a batch of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution raising the common claim of entitlement to the benefit of Section 5 of the Punjab Borstal Act, 1926.
(2.) In each of these writ petitions, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to life imprisonment. The State of Haryana has challenged the claim of the petitioner in each of these writ petitions.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of this Court in Hava Singh v. State of Haryana, (1987) 4 SCC 207 in support of the claim advanced in the writ petitions. A two Judge Bench of this Court in that case referred to Section 5 of the Act and held :- "On a conspectus of the aforesaid decision as well as on a consideration of the facts and circumstances the only conclusion follows that the petitioner who has already undergone actual imprisonment for seven years is entitled to be released from detention and from imprisonment. Paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual is not applicable in this case as the petitioner who was an adolescent convict below twenty-one years of age was sent to the Borstal Institute at Hissar for detention in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Punjab Borstal Act, 1926. He being convicted by the Sessions Judge the maximum period of detention as prescribed by the Act is seven years. We have already said hereinbefore that such an inmate of the Borstal Institute cannot be transferred to jail on the ground that he has attained the age of twenty-one years as the said Act does not provide for the same. The only provision for transfer to jail is in the case of incorrigible inmate or inmates convicted of major Borstal Institution offence.";