ORDER :

Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

1. The convict is before this Court, urging that he had preferred an application under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which came to be rejected by the Home Department and being aggrieved with the same, he has preferred Special Civil Application No. 7483 of 2017, which is pending, and therefore, he is entitled to long parole leave. It is also urged that the learned Advocate representing the petitioner in the aforesaid matter has expired and he needs to engage another advocate. It is, therefore, urged that on that count also this Court may show indulgence.

2. In support of his say, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2016, Dated: 29.06.2016, in the case of ‘STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER Vs. LAL SINGH @ MANJIT SINGH & OTHERS’, where, the Apex Court was considering the challenge to the judgment and order dated 23.08.2012, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1620 of 2011, whereby, the High Court, while entertaining the Writ Petition had opined that the order dated 26.07.2011 passed by the Government of Gujarat, declining to grant the benefit of premature release to the respondent-convict is illegal and further directed the State Government to reconsider his case and take a fresh decision in the light of the discussions made in the impugned order and further to release him on parole for a period of three months on furnishing personal bond/security bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent. The relevant findings and observations read thus:

“16. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh and others a two-Judge Bench speaking through Fazal Ali, J., after adverting to the decision in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra and other decisions and the provisions of CrPC, has opined that that a sentence of imprisonment for life does not automatically expire at the end of 20 years including the remissions, because the administrative rules framed under the various Jail Manuals or under the Prisons Act cannot supersede the statutory provisions of the Indian Penal Code. A sentence of imprisonment for life means a sentence for the entire life of the prisoner unless the appropriate Government chooses to exercise its discretion to remit either the whole or a part of the sentence under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

17. In Naib Singh s/o Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab and others the Court was dealing with a writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the continued detention of the convict petitioner in jail and seeking an order in the nature of habeas corpus claiming that he had served more than the maximum sentence of imprisonment prescribed under law and therefore he should be released. The petitioner therein was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to death but on a mercy petition preferred by him, his death sentence was commuted by the Governor of Punjab to imprisonment for life. After serving rigorous imprisonment of more than 22 years, a petition was filed seeking the release. The Court referred to Sections 53 and 55 IPC and Section 433 CrPC., various decisions of the High Court and then concept of transportation for life and eventually held that it is well settled position in law that the sentence of imprisonment for life has to be equated to rigorous imprisonment for life and ultimately the claim of the petitioner to immediate release was declined in the absence of any order of commutation being passed either under Section 55 IPC or Section 433(b) CrPC.

18. In this regard, we may fruitfully refer to a two-Judge Bench decision in Laxman Naskar (supra). In the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, the Court opined that though under the relevant Rules a sentence for imprisonment for life is equated with the definite period of 20 yea