The policy prevailing at the time of conviction is crucial for considering premature release of life convicts, and convicts opting to undergo sentence in open air jails are entitled to the benefit of remission as per the Instructions dated 23.10.2001.

JUDGMENT

Sant Parkash, J. - This judgment shall dispose of aforementioned three petitions as they have arisen out of the same FIR and involve common questions of facts and law therein. For the convenience of the Court, the facts are being taken from CRWP-7180-2021 titled as Jai Kishan @ Bhola Vs. State of Punjab andothers.

2. The instant petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of direction to the respondents to initiate and consider the case for premature release of the petitioner in FIR No. 140 dated 28.11.2005 under Sections 302/307/34 of IPC and 25 & 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Julkan, District Patiala whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide order dated 20.02.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Patiala out of which the petitioner has already undergone more than 9 years and 5 months of actual sentence.

3. The Criminal Appeal bearing No. CRA-290-DB-2010 filed by the petitioner against the judgment/order of conviction & sentence has been dismissed by this Court vide its judgment dated 06.08.2015. The petitioner is confined in Open Air Agricultural Jail at Nabha.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is entitled to be released prematurely as he has already undergone the required sentence for premature release in view of the Instructions of Govt. of Punjab dated 08.07.1991 regarding premature release of the life convicts in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 432, 433 and 433(A)of Cr.P.C. and Article 161 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs, Mohinder Singh 2007(4) RCR 909 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the instructions which were applicable at the time of conviction are to be applied for consideration in the case of life convict for grant of premature release.

6. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit of Manjit Singh Tiwana, Superintendent, Open Air Agriculture Jail, Nabha wherein it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to get premature release as he does not fulfill the condition of Premature Release Policy dated 08.07.1991 as well as existing Policy dated 14.12.2017 whereby the petitioner is required to undergo 09 years actual or 13 years actual or with remission but in this case, he has undergone 07 years, 01 month and 05 days of actual sentence.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

8. A perusal of reply reveals that Govt. of Punjab had constituted a Committee for examination of the premature release cases of the life convict and a meeting of the said committee was held on 16.07.2020 wherein it was decided that for calculating the actual sentence the following formula should be adopted:-

Custody during under trial period + conviction period -Parole period = actual sentence.

8.1. The above referred formula was enacted pursuant to meeting dated 16.07.2020 cannot be applicable to the case of the petitioner retrospectively.

8.2. Now the first and foremost question required to be adjudicated before this Court is as to which policy would be applicable to the present petitioners. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of conviction of petitioners, the Premature Release Policy dated 08.07.1991 was in existance.

9. Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgments passed in Criminal Appeal No. 566 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6638 of 2009 titled as "Stateof Haryana and Ors. Vs. Jagdish" decided on 22.03.2010, reported as 2010(4) SCC 216 and Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2005 titled as "State of Haryana Vs. Mahender Singh and Others" decided on 02.11.2007, reported as 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 909, has held that for grant of remissions, the life convict would be governed by the policy of remissions, prevailing on the date of the judgment of conviction and not by the policy which existed on the date of consideration of his premature release. Also, in