Judgment

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.:- Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1158 of 1985.

2. The State of Haryana has preferred these two appeals against the Judgment and Order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court .dated 21-12-1984* in Writ Petitions Nos. 399/ 83 and 251/ 83 respectively passing similar orders directing the State Government to consider the cases of the respondents for premature release.

* Reported in 1985 Cri LJ 941 (Punj & Har)

3. The facts which lie in a very narrow compass may be stated thus:

The respondents were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal which sentence inflicted on each of them was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment on mercy petitions.

4. It seems that the State Government issued various executive instructions from time to time either altering or amending the existing instructions by fresh executive instructions specifying the minimum period of actual detention to be undergone by a convict sentenced to life imprisonment before his case for premature release could be considered by the State Government. To appreciate the case of the respective parties it would be apposite to make reference to the relevant instructions . At the outset, the instructions contained in paragraph 516-B of Punjab Jail Manual which are in the nature of executive instructions by way of guidance may be referred to which instructions are based on a Government of India resolution No. 159-167 dated 6th September 1905. The aforesaid paragraph reads thus :

"516-B(a) With the exception of females and who were under 20 years of age at the time of commission of offence, the cases of every convicted prisoner sentenced to:

(i) imprisonment for life

. ......................................

(iv) ...............................

(a) who has undergone a period of detention in jail amounting together with remission earned to 14 years, shall be submitted through Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab for the orders of the State Government."

5. The substance of the above paragraph is that the case of a male lifer who was above 20 years of age at the time of commission of offence sentenced to life imprisonment and who has undergone detention in jail amounting together with remission earned to 14 years, should be submitted to the State Government for consideration of his premature release. It further appears in the year 1971, the State Government after a considerable deliberation took a policy decision and issued instructions through its Memorandum No. 13311-6JJ-71/39656 dated 10th of November 1971 providing that a period of actual sentence of 8-1/2 years in the case of adult life convicts and 6 years in the case of female convicts as well those male convicts below 20 years of age at the time of commission of offence should be regarded as the qualifying period of consideration for premature release. This memorandum was clarified that all cases of prisoners should be sent for consideration of their premature release in the light of the said policy decision with effect from 2nd November 1971.

6. Thereafter, in January 1976 the question of releasing prematurely life convicts whose death sentence has been commuted was again considered by the State Government and it took a policy decision that cases of such life convicts should be considered for premature release only after completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment and in that behalf Memorandum No. 403-6JJ-76/3456 dated 30th January 1976 containing the necessary instructions was issued by the State Government. It is culled out from the impugned judgment of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 1986 (arising out of Writ Petition No. 399/83) that the State Government with a view to liberalise the policy of premature release of prisoners decided that such cases might be reviewed by a State Level Committee comprising of four members inclusive of Minister for Prisons and directed the concerned Superintend