Criminal Misc No.M-6973 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc No.M-6973 of 2011 Date of Decision : March 23rd, 2011. Gurnam Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Gurnam Singh – petitioner, aged about 89 years (per copy of ration card submitted by the State counsel) was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in case bearing First Information Report No. 30 dated January 22nd, 1991, Police Station – Dhuri under Sections 302, 120-B etc. of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated December 16th, 1999. He is now confined in District Jail, Sangrur. He has already completed actual sentence of 10 years 3 months and 3 days and 16 years 10 months and 7 days including remissions, per reply of the respondent-State. 2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has urged that he be released forthwith in view of the order dated September 21st, 2004 (Annexure P/1) passed by Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Chandigarh, whereby, the Governor of Punjab, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 161 of the Constitution of India, was pleased to Criminal Misc No.M-6973 of 2011 2 .. remit the portion of unexpired sentence of imprisonment for life and to grant special remission to prisoners, who were convicted by Civil Courts of criminal jurisdiction in the State of Punjab, and who were more than 70 years old, have undergone actual sentence for more than 5 years as on 1st September, 2004, on the occasion of 400th anniversary of the installation of Sri. Guru Granth Sahib falling on 1st September 2004, subject to the conditions and exceptions indicated therein. The benefits were not admissible in the following cases:- “i. If the sentence of death has been commuted into one of the imprisonment for life either under Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 72/161 of the Constitution of India. ii. Offence under Section 304 alongwith Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. culpable homicide with wrongful confinement for extortion. iii. Offence under Section 304 with Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. culpable homicide with rape. iv. Offence under Section 302/304 of the Indian Penal Code where the victim is a child under the age of 14 years. v. Any conviction under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, i.e. for criminal conspiracy in connection with the above crimes. vi. If the prisoner is involved in ghastly murder/double murder involving extreme brutality/bestiality in which the prisoner has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life or if he is involved with a crime connected with terrorism in the State. vii. Offence under Section 304(b) of the Indian Penal Code i.e. a dowry death, and viii. Offence under Section 304 of the Indian Criminal Misc No.M-6973 of 2011 3 .. Penal Code where culpable homicide has been committed in connection with any dispute on dowry and this is indicated in the judgment of the trial Court.” 3. In reply, the State of Punjab has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits under the aforesaid order dated September 21st, 2004 (Annexure P/1) because his case falls under clause (v) of Para 3. 4. A perusal of clause (v) of Para 3 of order, Annexure P/1 shows that the benefit of special remission is not admissible to a prisoner convicted under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, that is, for criminal conspiracy, in connection with the crimes mentioned in clauses (i) to (iv) above. 5. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Sections 302, 120-B IPC etc., but the victim was not the child, under the age of 14 years, as stated by the counsel for the petitioner. Thus, clause (v), on the basis of which the petitioner's case for premature release was not considered, is not applicable. Otherwise too, the case of co-accused of the petitioner – Chand Singh, who is aged about 70 years, has been recommended by the authorities concerned for premature release in view of order dated September 21st, 2004 (Annexure P/1), referred to above. 9. In view of above, the State Government is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made hereinabove. 10. It is further ordered that till the case for pre-mature release of the petitioner is decided by the State Government, he shall be released on parole on his furnishing personal bond and a surety bond to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Sangrur. The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and will keep peace and shall not indulge in any nefarious activity whilst on parole. 11. On receipt of order from the State Government, Superintendent, District Jail, Sangrur shall inform the petitioner Criminal Misc No.M-6973 of 2011 4 .. accordingly. 12. Disposed of. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 23.03.2011 som