IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.29474 of 2008 Date of decision : 11.11.2008 Suraj Mal .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. V.K.Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr.S.S Mor. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner filed Criminal Misc. No. 1730-M of 2008 for redressal of his grievance that the competent authority was not inclined to consider his premature release plea in spite of the fact that he had already undergone actual sentence for more than 14 years and total period of sentence undergone by him was for more than 17 years. That petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Sham Sunder, J.) vide order dated 4.7.2008. The competent authority (State Level Committee) considered the premature release of the petitioner in compliance with the order dated 2.7.2008 (Annexure P-4) of this Court and declined the plea by observing that petitioner would become eligible for consideration of premature release only after he had undergone total period of sentence for 20 years. The view flowed from the inference that the matter is governed by the instructions presently in currency. That order also drew sustenance from the provisions of Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of the averment that the policy in force on the date of conviction is to govern the consideration of the issue of the indicated category, learned counsel relies upon the Apex Court judgment rendered in State of Haryana Vs. Mahender Singh and others 2007 (12) SCALE 669. It is also pointed out that a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Augustine George Masih, J) had also passed a similar order on 5.8.2008 in Criminal Misc. No. 39648-M of 2007 (Annexure P-4/A). It is pointed out that the position of law indicated by the Apex Court in Mahender Singh's case (supra) had been accepted by the respondent-State (“Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Supreme Court judgment in a case State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh and others 2008 Criminal Law General 444 to submit that the instructions prevalent at the time of conviction of the petitioner would be applicable to the case of the petitioner for consideration of his premature release and not the present instructions which have been applied by the State. This position in law is accepted by the counsel for the respondent State.”) The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned order passed by the competent authority shall stand quashed. The view obtained by the State Level Committee in the matter of instructions which shall govern consideration is held to be invalid. It is held that, in the light of the Apex Court judgment in Mahender Singh's case (supra), the competent authority is obliged to consider the premature release case of the petitioner in terms of the policy in currency on the date of conviction. The exercise shall be concluded within seven days from today. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. November 11, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE