- (1.) THE detenu is a life convict. He is one of those to whom Section 433-A, Criminal P. C, is applicable. Thereunder, as mandatorily required, he is not to be released from prison unless he has served at least fourteen years' sentence. Further, undeniably, he has to actually serve fourteen years of sentence. The detenu claims that he has filed, a mercy petition for premature release to the Governor of Punjab under Article 161 of the Constitution on the ground that he was below 20 years of age at the time of commission of the offence. Reliance is placed on the Government instructions dt. 12-12-1985 issued to the Inspector General Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide memo No. 12/152/83-6j/32987. Under those instructions, mercy petitions submitted to the Governor of Punjab are to be examined by the State Level Committee and recommendations are to be made to the Government on the considerations mentioned therein. Consideration No. 6 is the one invoked here by the detenu. This consideration is to the following effect: After introduction of Section 433-A, Cr. P. C. with effect from 18-12-1978, since every premature release case of a lifer convict will be taken up after he has completed 14 years'actual sentence in a jail, a minimum period of 5/6 years for juvenile and women prisoners and 7v2 and 8v2 years for adult male prisoner can be taken as one of the guidelines for release on mercy petition. The petitioner claims that, since he has spent about 5v2 years of actual sentence, he is one of the eligibles for moving a mercy petition for consideration of the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE State, in its return, has said that the mercy petition of the detenu is under consideration. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Governor should be asked to decide the mercy petition within a specific period. It has been urged so on the strength of orders passed in a few cases of this Court, e. g. , Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 27, 28, 97, 123, 153 and 449 of 1985 and No. 325 of 1985 and a handful of others in which the State undertook to have the mercy petitions of the respective convicts in those decided within three months. The State is now not prepared to give any such undertaking for reasons which are not difficult to visualize. But, the convict's counsel insists that direction be issued that the case of the petitioner be decided within three months. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sher Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/sc/0147/1983 , AIR1983 SC 465 , 1983 (1 )Crimes1017 (SC ), 1983 (1 )SCALE283 , (1983 )2 SCC344 , [1983 ]2 SCR582 and a couple of decisions of this Court which are being discussed hereafter.
(3.) IN Sher Singh's case (supra), the Supreme Court had before it a writ petition in which Sher Singh and his two companions were condemned to death after all avenues in courts of law had been exhausted. Since there had been some delay in carrying out the execution of the sentence, they approached the Supreme Court for commutation relying on a judgment of that Court in T. V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu MANU/sc/0172/1983. , AIR1983 SC 361 , 1983 Crilj693 , 1983 (1 )Crimes728 (SC ), 1983 (1 )SCALE871 , 1984 Supp (1 )SCC648. Though T. V. Vatheeswaran's case (supra) was almost upset, their Lordships took into account one of the causes of delay in execution of death sentence, being pendency of mercy petitions under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution or Under Sections 432 and 433 Cr. P. C. before the Executive authorities. It is in that context that their Lordships ruled that long and interminable delays in the disposal of mercy petitioners were a serious hurdle in the dispensation of justice and expressed the concern that such delays tend to shake the confidence of the people in the very system of justice. The Court even expressed that a pernicious impression seems to be growing that whatever the Courts may decide, one could always turn to the Executive authorities in order to defeat the verdict of the Court by resorting to delaying tactics. It is in these circumstances that the Supreme Court recommended to the Executive authorities a self-imposed rule that every such petition shall be disposed of within a period of three months from the date on which it is received. These observations of the Supreme Court were made in the context where the verdict of the Court tends to get thwarted, but not in the converse as has been sought to be projected by the learned Counsel. It cannot be said on the strength of the aforesaid precedent of the Supreme Court that the Governor must decide a mercy petition always within three months. I find no such dictate of the Supreme Court on the strength of which I can issue a mandamus to the Governor to decide the mercy petition of the petitioner.;