Criminal Misc. No.M-33891 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-33891 of 2008 Date of decision : 22.12.2008 Lakha Singh ....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. H.P.S.Aulakh, 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 respondents. This Court, vide order dated 23.9.2008 passed in Criminal Misc. No.M-16308 of 2008, directed the competent authority to consider the premature release plea of the petitioner afresh within one month from the date of the order. In compliance therewith, the State Level Committee passed an order (Annexure P-1) deferring the consideration of the premature release case of the petitioner till he completes 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence. That view is in accord with the Haryana Government notification dated 13.8.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order deferring his premature release plea is violative of the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Mahender Singh and others Criminal Misc. No.M-33891 of 2008 -2- **** 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 909 as per which the policy in currency on the date of conviction is to rule the roost. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mahender Singh's case (supra), instructions in currency on the date of conviction ( instruction dated 19.11.1991) have to govern the consideration of premature release plea of the petitioner. Apart therefrom, a Division Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. No.12868-M of 2003 made the following observations while negativing the very premise from which sustenance has been drawn by the Competent Authority in declining the premature release of the petitioner – prisoner:- “We would also like to notice that condition 2(a) in the 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-33891 of 2008 -3- **** 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 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.” The learned State counsel otherwise concedes that the verdict aforementioned was not appealed against and has, thus, attained finality. It is, thus, apparent that the deferment of the case by the competent authority vide Annexure P/1 is inappropriate and invalid and it is so held. In the light of the fore-going discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The competent authority is Criminal Misc. No.M-33891 of 2008 -4- **** 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. However, in the meantime, the petitioner shall be released on furnishing of adequate surety etc. undertkaing return to the law in case so ordered, by this Court. That release is being ordered as an interim measure, in view of the conceded position that he has already undergone actual sentence and total sentence in terms of the policy prevalent on the date of conviction. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority. The bonds for the purpose above indicated shall be presented before the District Magistrate concerned who shall pass an order thereupon on the day of presentation itself and forward the papers to the Superintendent Jail concerned for the release of the petitioner. A copy of the order shall be FAXED to the District Magistrate and the Superintendent Jail concerned. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. December 20, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE