Criminal Misc. No.M-21820 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-21820 of 2008 Date of decision : 19.11.2008 Dakash Paraja Pati @ Darshan Lal .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. D.S.Sidhu, Advocate for Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner's plea for consideration of his premature release on the basis of instructions is resisted by the respondents by averring that his case for premature release would be considered on completion of actual sentence of 12 years and total sentence of 18 years. In the context of that averment, it may be noticed that a controversy, akin to the one before this Court, came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court (K.S.Garewal, J.) in Crl. Misc. No.12868-M of 2003. In the context, the following observations were made by the Bench while negativing the very premise from which sustenance has been drawn by the Competent Authority in resisting the premature release of the petitioner – prisoner:- “We would also like to notice that condition 2(a) in the Criminal Misc. No.M-21820 of 2008 -2- **** 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-21820 of 2008 -3- **** 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. In the light of the fore-going discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The competent authority is directed to consider the premature release case of the petitioner on completion of actual sentence of 12 years without awaiting the total period of 18 years of sentence in the light of the observations made by this Court in the foregoing paras of this judgment. 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. November 19, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE