The main legal point established in the judgment is that the policy prevailing at the time of conviction governs the grant of remissions, and the commission of jail offences should not be a sole ground to deny premature release, especially when the person has already been punished for the misconduct.

JUDGMENT

Sant Parkash, J. - The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondents to release the petitioner prematurely on usual terms and conditions in view of the Govt. Policy dated 08.07.1991 (Annexure P-l) and quashing of order dated 06.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) whereby the case of the petitioner for his premature release has been declined.

3. The petitioner along with other co-accused was arrested in case FIR No. 56 dated 05.04.1999 under Sections 302, 324, 323, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur. The petitioner was tried for the aforesaid offences and after completion of trial, thepetitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Hoshiarpur vide order dated 16.12.2002. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the aforesaid judgment by filing appeal CRA-D-64-DB-2003 which was also dismissed vide order dated 14.05.2013.

4. The petition has been opposed by the respondents/State in terms of reply filed by way of affidavit of Manjit Singh Tiwana, PPS, Superintendent, Central Jail, Hoshiarpur.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the contents of rejoinder filed to the reply filed by the respondents has submitted that the Punjab Govt. had issued instructions dated 08.07.1991 (Annexure P-l) with regard to the Pre-Mature release of the life convicts and as per the said policy, the petitioner was required to undergo rigourous imprisonment of 10 years of actual sentence and total 14 years sentence with remissions whereas the petitioner has already undergone more than 12 years of actual sentence of imprisonment and has further undergone more than 20 years of sentence including remissions. Further detention of the petitioner is against the said Govt. policy and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was fulfilling all the conditions for grant of pre-mature release as per the Govt. Instructions dated 08.07.1991 and his case for pre-mature release was initiated and recommended but was subsequently declined on the ground that he had committed jail offence on 02.04.2018, whereby a mobile phone was recovered from the petitioner and a case was registered against him under Section 52-A of the Prisons Act, 1984. The parole of thepetitioner was stopped for one year in view of the said case. The petitioner has already been punished for the alleged offence but the official respondents are now again punishing the petitioner by not considering his case for another five years. The condition of maintaining good conduct in jail is not applicable in the case of those convicts who have already been convicted and sentenced for committing jail offences or crime separately. Further, the instructions which were applicable at the time of conviction were to be applied for grant of premature release to a life convict and in the present case, the Government has wrongly considered the case of the petitioner for premature release under instructions dated 04.04.2013, whereas his case was to be considered as per policy dated 08.07.1991 which was prevalent at the time of his conviction.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone the requisite sentence as per policy dated 08.07.1991 and in view of the same, the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith.

7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel reiterating the contents of reply has submitted that premature release case of the petitioner was initiated and after obtaining police verification report, his case for premature release was sent to the Office of Additional Director General of Police (Prisons) Punjab, Chandigarh vide letter No.81 CT dated 03.01.2019 under the Government Pol