JAI SINGH SEKHON,J - (1.) THE petitioner was sentenced to death by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, vide his order dated 19th March 1959. The sentence of death was commuted to imprisonment for life by the Governor of Punjab on 12th March 1970 on a mercy petition. The petitioner alleges having undergone 13 years 4 months and 10 days substantive sentence, besides earning 6 years 2 months and 20 days by way of remission It is, thus, maintained that the petitioner in all had undergone more than 20 years of sentence including remissions. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for enforcing Punjab Government instructions embodied in letter No. 403-6JJ-76/3456 dated 30th January, 1976, providing that cases of convicts whose death sentences have been commuted to life imprisonment on mercy petitions could be considered for remission if they had undergone 14 years substantive and 20 years including remissions.
(2.) IN the return filed by the State by way of affidavit of Shri R. M. Bassi, Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, it is admitted that on 20th June, 1988 the petitioner convict had undergone actual imprisonment of 13 years 8 months and 16 days, besides having earned 12 years 9 months and one day by way of remissions. It is further contended that the petitioner has no right to be released prematurely unless lie has undergone 20 years of substantive imprisonment excluding remissions. However, the State Government may consider his case for premature release after he had undergone 14 years substantive imprisonment without remission. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record. Admittedly, the petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, on 19th March, 1969, i e. much before 18th December, 1978. when the amended provisions of Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure came into force. In view of the rule of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 S.C. 2147, there is no dispute that the provisions of Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be applicable prospectively. Under these circumstances, the case of the petitioner for premature release had to be considered under the statutory Rule 516-B figuring in Chapter XV of the Punjab Jail Manual, as well as the instructions of the State Government issued from time to time. The relevant portion of the instructions issued vide Punjab Government memo No. 403-6JJ-75/3456 dated 30th January, 1976 runs as under :- (a) Life convicts whose death sentence is commuted on mercy petition should, ordinarily serve at least 20 years substantive imprisonment excluding remissions. (b) The cases of such life convicts may, however, be, considered for premature when they complete 14 years actual imprisonment and 20 years (including remissions) provided their conduct in the jail remains good throughout and (c) In cases where the State Government decides to order premature release of such life convicts before completion of actual sentence, the convict would be put under bond for the remaining period falling short of 20 years.
(3.) A persual of the above referred instructions leaves no doubt that the State Government may consider the premature release of the convict whose death sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment no mercy petition after he had undergone 14 years actual imprisonment or 20 years including remissions provided his conduct remained good throughout in the jail. In the case in hand it is not disputed that the conduct of the petitioner had remained good throughout his confinement in the jail and that by today he has undergone 14 years of substantive imprisonment and 20 years (including remissions).;