MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, J. - (1.) THIS case is one of the many cases in which not only the claim is similar but the defence too is the same.
(2.) THE petitioner is a life convict. He is confined in open air jail at Nabha. His detention there qualifies him for consideration of his premature release on the expiry of 7 1/2 years' actual sentence and 14 years' sentence including remission. The petitioner, having qualified that test, pleaded for premature releases. The Superintendent of Jail recommended his case for premature release. Obviously he was influenced by the conduct of the petitioner in jail. The police authorities, however, did not recommend the case of the petitioner for premature release on the ground that he is a dangerous character and it stood reported to the police that, if released, there was likelihood of breach of peace in the locality to which he belongs. Relying on such police reports, the State Government rejected the case of the petitioner but directed that a fresh look would be taken on his case by 22nd November, 1986. To facilitate that decision, requisite directions were issued to the concerned authorities that the process should be set in motion at least two months prior to that date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the provisions of section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the appropriate Government is empowered, while remitting sentence, to impose conditions which the person, who gains, is required to accept before he avails of the release. Under sub-section (3) of the section 432 Cr.P.C., if any condition, on which the sentence was remitted, has not been fulfilled, the appropriate Government is empowered to cancel the remission and thereupon the person, in whose favour remission was made, can be rearrested by any police officer without warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence. It is a different matter that the appropriate Government is otherwise empowered to remit a sentence without imposition of any conditions. Even under sub-section (2) of section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appropriate Government may, before taking a decision to remit a sentence' require the Presiding Judge of the Court, before or by which the conviction was made or affirmed, to give his opinion whether such application be granted or refused. It is thus patent that the law enables the appropriate Government to seek advice and assistance from various authorities before a convict can be prematurely released on remission of sentence and can employ such advice, and even without it impose conditions for remission. It is up to the convict to accept those conditions as a price for remission or not. But if he does, then on non-fulfilment of the conditions he can be arrested and required to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence. The interests of the State are properly safeguarded by the aforesaid two-provisions.
(3.) NOW , in the instance case, the conduct of the petitioner in jail is seemingly above board as otherwise the Superintendent of Jail would not have recommended his case for premature release. The apprehended conduct of the petitioner which has caused concern to the State, may be of such magnitude the remission may have to be deined to him altogether or it may be of such degree that remissions can be granted subject to imposition of conditions. The State Government, as it appears to me, was not alive to this aspect of the case while rejecting the premature release case of the petitioner on the earlier occasion. Now, since the time for a second look is approaching fast, it is directed that the State Government should look into this matter and give a position opinion as to whether the apprehended conduct of the petitioner can be safeguarded by imposition of conditions while remitting the sentence and, if not, for what reasons. For the present, there seem to be no ground to grant any relief to the petitioner instantly.;