HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU, J. - (1.) LACHHMAN Singh was arrested in a case under Section 302/34 I.P.C. registered at police station Hodal, on 22-9-1981 and after trial he was convicted and sentenced along with his co-accused to under go imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 11.5.1992. Since then he had undergone actual sentence of 10 years 11 months and 7 days and total sentence inclusive of remissions of more than 16 years. The petitioner alleged that at the time of commission of the offence he was 17 years of age and on his conviction he was confined to undergo the sentence of imprisonment for life in Juvenile and Borstal Jail, Hissar. Subsequently he was transferred to Central Jail, Ambala for his treatment of tuberculosis. He was suffering from this disease since 1983. In compliance with the instructions dated 28-11-1987 Annexure P-1 issued by the State Government of Haryana, Superintendent Jail forwarded his case for pre-mature release on 16-2-1988 as had already undergone the requisite period of sentence. The State Government declined his pre-mature release and deferred his case for one year. In the meantime State Government issued instructions dated 28-9-88 dealing with the cases of pre-mature release of the convict prisoners of different categories including the juvenile prisoners. Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala in compliance with these later instructions forwarded and recommended the petitioner's case for premature release which was rejected on the following grounds :- "Pre-mature release case of this life convict was considered by the committee and it was decided that his pre-mature release case may be considered along with the cases of his co-accused." This order was communicated on 27-6-1991 and copy of the same was Annexure P4. On 19-11-1991 the State Government issued instructions Annexure P-5. The case of the petitioner was again recommended by the Superintendent Jail under clause (2)(c) on the ground that the petitioner was juvenile convict but it was rejected on a new ground different then the earlier one, vide order copy of which was Annexure P-6. It was further pleaded that the impugned order Annexure P-6 was wrong illegal, arbitrary, unjust and improper. It was passed without application of mind by the committee to the facts of the case. The petitioner was a juvenile convict and he had qualified for his pre-mature release under the instruction dated 28-11-1987 as back as on 16-2-190 after undergoing years actual imprisonment. Even under the new instructions he had served the requisite period of sentence. The petitioner, thus, filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 14-1-1992 Annexure P-6 and directing the respondents to release him forthwith.
(2.) IN the written statement it was contended that as per commitment warrant issued by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 4th day of May, 1982, age of the petitioner was 18 years. He was not a juvenile convict as at the time of commission of offence he was not below 18 years. This fact was admitted that the petitioner had undergone actual sentence of more than 11 years and total sentence including remissions for more than 16 years. But it was maintained that in view of the heinous nature of crime that is murder with dacoity, the case or the petitioner was to be reconsidered after completion of 14 years of actual sentence, including under trial period and after earning at least 6 years remissions. It was further pleaded that instructions dated 28.9.1988 had been superseded by latest instructions issued vide Haryana Government Memo No. 31/135/91-1 JJ(II) dated 19.11.1991. I have heard Mr. P.C. Chaudhary, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Gill, Assistant Advocate General Haryana, Counsel for the respondents and have perused the records.
(3.) IT was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was less than 18 years of age at the time commission of the offence and even according to the latest instructions Annexure P-5 the petitioner had under gone requisite sentence. His case was wrongly rejected on the ground that he had committed aheinous crime because heinousness of the crime was to be seen only in the case of adult life convicts. The petitioner was not required to serve actual sentence of 14 years before he became eligible for his pre-mature release.;