IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-34325 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 24, 2008 Ramesh Kumar and another … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Hoshiar Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. (Oral) Crl. Misc. No. 60447 of 2008 Allowed, as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-34325 of 2008 Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that he would be content and interests of justice would be served if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the premature release case of the petitioner – prisoners in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Crl. Misc. No. M-34325 of 2008 Mahender Singh and others, 2007(4) RCR (Crl.) 909 and Division Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-12868 of 2003 – Jiya Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others. The petitioners are undergoing life imprisonment consequent upon his conviction by the learned Trial Judge on 26.08.1998 in case FIR No. 58 dated 05.07.1995 for the offences under Sections 302/324/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The precise averment made in the course of the petition is that the petitioner No.1 and 2 have undergone actual sentence of 15 year 05 months and 07 days and 13 years, 05 months and 03 days respectively and the total sentence of more than 17 years. In view of the presently conceded position that a review plea filed by the State of Haryana against the judgment in Mahender Singh’s case (supra) has been rejected by the Apex Court, the learned State counsel states that the Competent Authority shall dispose of the premature release case of the petitioner – prisoners within a period of two months. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider the premature release case of the petitioner – prisoners in view of the Mahender Singh’s case (supra) and the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 12868-M of 2003. The exercise shall be concluded within two months from today. However, if the respondent No.2 – Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala, (where the petitioners are presently lodged) 2 Crl. Misc. No. M-34325 of 2008 finds that the petitioners have indeed undergone the actual imprisonment in terms of the policy prevalent on the date of conviction (i.e. 26.08.1998 in this case), he shall unconditionally release the petitioner – prisoners forthwith. That order is being granted, as an interim measure, in order to ensure that the petitioner – prisoners does not undergo continued incarceration in spite of his having undergone the actual sentence in terms of the policy in currency of the date of the conviction. A copy of the order shall be FAXED to the respondent No.2 – Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the Competent Authority. Disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. Order dasti on payment of usual charges. December 24, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3