Criminal Writ Petition No.1346 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No.1346 of 2008 Date of decision : 23.12.2008 Ranjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Rahul Deswal, 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. An earlier plea (Criminal Misc. No. M-29709 of 2008) filed by the petitioner for issuance of a direction to the competent authority to consider the premature release plea of the petitioner, was disposed of by this Court by passing the following order:- “The petitioner – prisoner has a grievance that his premature plea is not being disposed of by the Competent Authority inspite of the fact that he has already undergone actual sentence for a period of 8- ½ years and total period of sentence of 14 years. The period undergone by him, the argument proceeds, entitles him for consideration for premature release in accord with the relevant instructions in currency on the date of his conviction. Notice of motion. Criminal Writ Petition No.1346 of 2008 -2- **** On the asking of the Court, Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State. In the face of that averment, learned State counsel states that the Competent Authority would consider the premature release case of the petitioner in the light of judgment of the Apex Court rendered in State of Haryana Vs. Mahender Singh & Ors., 2007(4) RCR (Crl.) 909, within a time bound frame. In view of the consensual position, the petition shall stand disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to dispose of the premature release case of the petitioner – prisoner in the light of the Mahender Singh’s case (supra). The exercise shall be concluded within one month 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.” That order has not concededly been complied with. This Court has noticed in a large number of cases that the order passed by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Mahender Singh and others' case and also an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 12868-M of 2003 (Jiya Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others) are not being complied with by the authorities at various hierarchical levels which deal with the premature release cases. In those cases, the State has been taking up a plea that the consideration of premature release cases was being deferred as the State has filed a review plea in Mahender Singh's case in the Apex Court. That review plea Criminal Writ Petition No.1346 of 2008 -3- **** has concededly come to be dismissed by the Apex Court presently. There must, thus, be a large number of prisoners, who are undergoing continued incarceration which is far in excess of the period they were required to undergo in terms of the policy in currency on the date of their conviction. In view of the fact that the review plea filed by the State in Mahender Singh's case has been dismissed, the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh shall file a status report detailing all such cases in which the consideration of premature release had not been considered or had been deferred inspite of the orders of the Apex Court in Mahender Singh's case. The status report to be furnished would, obviously, relate to the post Mahender Singh's case decision by the Apex Court. The status report shall be furnished within fifteen days from today. In the meantime, it would be appropriate for the competent authority to consider the unconditional release of such like prisoners forthwith. The consideration would relate to those prisoners whose cases were deferred in violation of the interpretation of the law by the Apex Court in Mahender Singh' s case. In the present case, it is apparent that as per policy in force at the time of conviction of the petitioner, he was required to undergo 8-1/2 years of actual and 14 years of total sentence. The petitioner-prisoner who was convicted by the learned Trial Court on 19.4.1984 has undergone 11 years of actual sentence. He must have undergone the total period of sentence as well by now. Even otherwise the insistence of the competent authority on a prisoner undergoing total sentence before his case for premature release could be taken up, was invalidated by a Division Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. No.12868-M of 2003 (Jiya Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others) by making the following observations:- “We would also like to notice that condition 2(a) in the Criminal Writ Petition No.1346 of 2008 -4- **** instructions dated August 3, 2000 and April 12, 2002, as per reply filed by the State, require a life convict to undergo 14 years actual sentence (inclusive of undertrial period) and total sentence (including remissions) of not less than 20 years. We cannot help noticing that the wording of the condition is not clear. What is meant to be conveyed is that premature release would not be considered before 20 years have been undergone, and even with the benefit of remission, the convict must undergo 14 years. But what seems to be conveyed is that the convict’s case shall be considered after 14 years of actual sentence provided that total period of sentence including remissions is not less than 20 years. In the present case, the convict has completed actual sentence of 14 years. Supposing he has not earned any remission whatsoever, he would have no hope of release until he completes 6 more years. If the convict has undergone 10 years and has earned remission of 10 years, then he would have completed 20 years with remission but not 14 years of actual sentence. If the clause had been worded ---- “case may be considered after completion of 20 years total sentence, including remissions but only after 14 years of actual sentence, inclusive of undertrial period”, it would have been easier to understand. This conundrum can be explained illustratively. Take the case where the minimum age qualification for a particular post is 25 years but it can be relaxed to 22 years. Therefore, if this provision is drafted as “minimum qualification for the job is 22 years but with relaxation the candidate must be at least 25 Criminal Writ Petition No.1346 of 2008 -5- **** years” would it make any sense? We think not. In plain language remission is relaxation. Therefore, remission of sentence is relaxation of sentence. Common sense would require that first the qualifying sentence should be determined and then it should be relaxed. However, the regulation in question requires that first the minimum qualifying period of sentence must be reached at 14 years and then relaxation has to be added to make it upto 20 years.” In the light thereof, the competent authority is directed to consider the premature release case of the petitioner in view of Mahender Singh's case (supra) and the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No.12868-M of 2003 and in the light of the observations made by this Court in the foregoing paras of this judgment. The exercise shall be concluded within two months from today. In view of the presently conceded position that the review plea preferred by the State of Haryana in Mahender Singh's case has been dismissed, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released unconditionally forthwith. A copy of this order be FAXED to the District Magistrate, Karnal and the Superintendent Jail, Karnal where the petitioner is presently lodged. 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. December 23, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE