IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition 520 of 2008 Date of decision: 16.1.2009 Sukhbir Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and ors …Respondents Present: Mr Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr PS Sidhu, Addl AG Punjab. S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus to release the convict/detenue from the unlawful detention of the State authorities. The petitioner was tried for the offence under Sections 302, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code (IPC - for short) in case FIR 23 dated 2.3.1994 registered at PS Dhuri. Since 23.2.1994, the petitioner is in prison. He was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur on 22.1.2000 for the offences under Sections 302 and 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, besides to pay fine of Rs 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for one year. The criminal appeal filed by the petitioner in this Court was dismissed on 10.5.2001. The case of the petitioner for his premature release was declined by the State vide order dated 4.2.2008 (Annexure P2). Till the date of passing the said order dated 4.2.2008 (P2) the petitioner completed 20 years 2 months and 2 days of sentence which includes 13 years 4 months and 25 days of actual sentence after deducting parole, though with relaxation. The premature 1 Criminal Writ Petition 520 of 2008 release case of the petitioner was considered in terms of the State Govt instructions dated 8.7.1991 but has been declined as the District Magistrate, Sangrur and SSP Sangrur did not recommend the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the report dated 17.11.2005 (P3) to contend that the SSP vide letter dated 31.10.2005 had recommended the premature release of the petitioner and accordingly the District Magistrate also recommended the same. It is submitted that in fact the DGP had vide letter dated 7.8.2007 (P6) also recommended the premature release of the petitioner. Thereafter, despite the said recommendations, the State (respondent-1) has, vide order dated 4.2.2008 (P2) on the basis of the letters dated 31.10.2007 (P4) of the District Magistrate Sangrur which is based on the letter dated 7.9.2007 of the SSP Sangrur, declined the premature release of the petitioner. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the earlier letter dated 17.11.2005 (P3) recommending the premature release of the petitioner was issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Sangrur and not by the District Magistrate. Therefore, fresh report was called for and the matter considered, which has been declined by order dated 4.2.2008 (P2). After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the power of judicial review is applicable to criminal matters as well. Therefore, the authorities are liable to take into consideration all the material and documents which are necessary for reaching a decision as to whether a convict who is undergoing life imprisonment is to be released on premature basis. It may be noticed that the case of the petitioner for premature release is being considered in terms of Article 161 of the Constitution of India on the basis of the State Govt instructions dated 8.7.1991 (P1). However, in the decision making process, all the necessary documents and material which were available on record were liable to be 2 Criminal Writ Petition 520 of 2008 taken into account. A perusal of the order dated 4.2.2008 (P2) would show that the letter dated 7.8.2007 (P6) of the DGP (Jail) Punjab has not been taken into account. Besides, it may be noticed that there are 2 letters of the SSP Sangrur; one is dated 31.10.2005 in which the Police has stated that it has no objection to the premature release of the petitioner. The same was endorsed by the Additional District Magistrate vide letter dated 17.11.2005 (P3). Thereafter, there is another letter dated 7.9.2007 of the SSP Sangrur whereby the premature release of the petitioner has not been recommended and the District Magistrate Sangrur vide letter dated 31.10.2007 (P4) has endorsed the same. However, in the decision making process, the earlier recommendation dated 31.10.2005 of the SSP Sangrur and the letter dated 17.11.2005 (P4) of the Additional District Magistrate Sangrur were also liable to be taken into consideration as the same had a material bearing on the decision making process. This having not been done would vitiate the impugned order dated 4.2.2008 (P2). Accordingly, the order dated 4.2.2008 (P2) is quashed and the criminal writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent-1 – State to reconsider the matter afresh by taking into account all the necessary and material documents which are required to be taken into consideration in the decision making process. Besides, also obtain fresh report as may be deemed appropriate for the consideration process. The necessary consideration shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 3 months from the receipt of a copy of this order. 16.1.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 3