S.S.GREWAL,J - (1.) THIS petition, as well as, Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 3171 of 1988 (Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab and others), 2172 of 1988 (Kirpal Singh v. State and others), 2173 of 1988 (Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 2175 of 1988 (Asha Rani v. State of Punjab and others), 2176 of 1988 (Lajwanti v. State of Punjab and others), 2210 of 1988 (Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab and others), 215 of 1988 (Hakam Singh v. State of Punjab and others), 2362 of 1998 (Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab and others) 2363 of 1988 (Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab and others), 1715 of 1988 (Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab and others), 1832 of 1988 (Gurmel Singh v. State of Punjab and others), 1833 of 1988 (Baghel Singh v. State of Punjab and others), 1835 of 1998 (Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab and others), 2084 of 1988 (Remesh Chand v. State of Punjab), 2085 of 1988 (Puran Singh State of Punjab and others) and 40 of 1989 (Dhram Singh v. State of Punjab and others), shall be disposed of by one judgment as common questions of law and fact are involved. In all these petitions extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked for consideration of premature release of the petitioners under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, as the case of premature release of individual prisoners involved in these petitions had been declined by the State Government on various grounds.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY , prisoners in all these cases were convicted after insertion of Section 433-A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') vide Amendment Act No. 45 of 1978, which, came into force on 18th December, 1978. After coming into force of Section 433-A, controversy arose whether period of 14 years of imprisonment includes remissions earned by a prisoner because of his good conduct of Jail, or the same can be commuted, or remitted on other grounds covered by the Government instructions. As per majority view in case Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147, conclusions were formulated, out of which following would be relevant for determining matters in controversy in the present petitions :- "That imprisonment for life lasts until the last breath, and whatever the length of remissions earned, the prisoner can claim release only if the remaining sentence is remitted by Government." "The power under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution can be exercised by the Central and State Governments, not by the President or Governor on their own. The advice of the appropriate Government binds the Head of the State. No separate order for each individual case is necessary but any general order made must be clear enough to identity the group of cases and indicate the application of mind to the whole group." "Considerations for exercise of power under Articles 72/161 may be myriad and their occasions protean, and are left to the appropriate Government, but no consideration nor occasion can be wholly irrelevant, irrational, discriminatory or mala fide. Only in these rare cases will the court examine the exercise." "Although the remission rules or short sentencing provisions propriovigore may not apply as against Section 433-A, they will override Section 433-A if the Government, Central or State, guides itself by the self-same rules or schemes in the exercise of its constructional power. We regard it as fair that until fresh rules are made in keeping with experience gathered, current social conditions and accepted penological thinking - a desirable step, in our view - the present remission and release scheme may usefully be taken as guidelines under Article 72/161 and orders for release passed. We cannot fault the Government, if in some intractably savage delinquents Section 433-A it itself treated as a guideline for exercise of Artilces 72/161. These observations of ours are recommendatory to avoid a hiatus, but it is for Government, Central or State, to decide whether and why the current Remission Rules should not survive until replace by a more wholesome scheme." In view of the aforecited binding authority of the Apex Court, it is quite patent that the existing rules or instructions of the State Government can legally provide guidelines to the State to exercise its power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit or communicate the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.
(3.) BESIDES appointing State Level Committees to expedite the procedure for consideration of cases concerning premature release of the convicts vide instructions Annexure P1, it was directed that only those convicts would be eligible for premature release, who, have completed a requisite actual sentence as per earlier policy and who have satisfactory conduct in jail and whose cases District Level Committee recommends.;