The government's decision regarding the premature release of life convicts applies to cases where the conviction was recorded and the sentence was imposed before the date of its enforcement.

J.M.TANDON, J.

1. Ram Saran petitioner was convicted under S.302, Penal Code, and sentenced to death by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal on January 29, 1971. He had undergone 16 years, 1 month and 28 days sentence, including 5 years, 8 months and 27 days remissions as on July 21, 1982, when he was released on bail.

2. The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition in the Supreme Court seeking direction to the State authorities to consider his case for premature release and the same was disposed of vide order dated December 10, 1980 in accordance with the decision in Maru Ram V/s. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147: (1980 Cri LJ 1440), The order passed by the Supreme Court (P.2) reads :

"The writ petitions above mentioned being called on for orders before this Court on 10th day of December, 1980, upon hearing counsel for the petitioners this Court doth make the following orders :-

All of these writ petitions except Writ Petitions Nos.1477 and 1478 of 1980 shall stand disposed of in accordance with the judgment of this Court dated November 11, 1980, in Maru Ram V/s. Union of India. All persons who were released on bail shall surrender to their sentence and the respective State Govt. will pass appropriate orders in each individual case or generally in any group or class of cases in the light of the judgment aforesaid within six months from today.

If in any particular case, orders of release have been passed prior to the introduction of Section 433-A, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused need not surrender to their bail. Writ Petitions Nos.1477 and 1478 of 1980 will be decided and will be listed for hearing and disposal separately."

3. The State authorities called for the premature release case of the petitioner for consideration in July, 1981 and declined his premature release on the ground that he was bound to undergo 14 years substantive sentence. The petitioner has assailed this decision of the State authorities in the present writ and has sought direction that his premature release case be considered in terms of the policy decision of the Government dated November 28, 1977 (P.3).

4. The Government have issued letter No.43/15783-JJ(2) dated February 27, 1984 (P.4) clarifying the earlier instructions dated November 28,1977 (P.3) and reiterating their inapplicability to life convicts whose death sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment on their mercy petitions and that the premature release cases of such convicts shall continue to be considered in the light of the governments policy decision dated December 12, 1967 making it obligatory for them to undergo 14 years substantive sentence. The petitioner has assailed the application for Annexure P.4 as well to his case in the present writ petition.

5. Section 432, Cr.P.C. empowers the Government to suspend or remit sentences awarded to the convicts. Sub-section (1) of S.432 reads :

"(1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.

(2) to (5) xx xx xx xx

6. In 1978, S.433-A was added in Cr.P.C. imposing restriction on the power of remission or commutation in certain cases. This section reads:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under Section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment."

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Maru Rams case (1980 Cri LJ 1440) (supra) held that S.433-A would apply only prospectively and it will not apply to cases where conviction has been recorded and