JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 11.04.2019 (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent No. 2-Additional Director General of Prisons, Punjab, whereby the case of the petitioners for their premature release had been rejected on the ground that at the time of passing the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, the sentences so awarded to the petitioners were not ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court.

2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioners is that they had been booked in a case arising out of FIR No. 125 dated 02.06.2006, registered under Section 302 of IPC at Police Station Kot Bhai. They were arrested and faced trial and were held guilty and convicted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide judgment dated 25.08.2009 and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. In addition thereto, they were also held guilty and convicted under Sections 326 and 325 of IPC. Imprisonment of 03 years and 02 years, respectively, for commission of offences under these offences had also been awarded to them, apart from making payment of fine with default clause. The petitioners filed an appeal before this Court, bearing CRA-D-953-DB-2009, which was dismissed, vide judgment dated 03.10.2013.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have undergone a period of more than 13 years in custody. Their conduct has remained good. They did not commit any jail offence during the above mentioned period. The period of their custody along with remissions has crossed a term of 20 years as they have been granted remissions for a period of more than 07 years. It is further submitted that under the policy dated 08.07.1991, the petitioners were entitled for grant of premature release on expiry of a period of 10 years of actual sentence, which has already been undergone by them. Their case for grant of premature release was, however, not recommended by the respondent No. 3 under the policy dated 08.07.1991. Rather, the same was recommended under the policy of the year 2017, as per which, a period of incarceration of a life convict was 12 years of actual sentence. The petitioners, while submitting that since at the time of their conviction, the policy dated 08.07.1991 was applicable, therefore, their case could not be recommended under the policy instructions dated 14.12.2017, have made prayer for directing the respondents to release them prematurely in terms of policy dated 08.07.1991.

4. It is also the case of the petitioners that the trial Court, while holding them guilty for commission of aforementioned offences, had not passed any order for concurrent running of the sentences. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of Sections 31 and 427 of Cr.P.C., all the sentences awarded to the petitioners should be considered to be running concurrently even in the absence of any specific order being passed by the trial Court in this regard. Therefore, prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 11.04.2019, passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the case of the petitioners for premature release had also been rejected on the ground that at the time of holding them guilty and convicting for commission of aforementioned offences, the sentences awarded to them were not ordered to run concurrently. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Muthuramalingam and others vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police : 2016 (3) RCR (Criminal) 827 and State of Haryana vs. Jagdish, 2010 (4) SCC 216 and has argued that the petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed and they deserve to be prematurely released.

5. The respondents have filed joint statu