Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh Alias Binu vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 12 November, 2024
CRWP-11673-2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.275
Case No. : CRWP-11673-2023
Decided On : November 12, 2024
Manjit Singh @ Binu .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. Rajpreet Singh Brar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. R. S. Bhatta, DAG, Punjab.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present
Criminal Writ Petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of direction to the respondents to initiate and
consider the premature release case of the petitioner as he has already
undergone more than the sentence period required for considering his case
for grant of premature release.
2. Admittedly, petitioner and another co-accused namely Ravdeep
Kaur were convicted vide judgment dated 28/30.03.2012, passed by the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, in case FIR No.321
dated 14.10.2005, under Section 302/34/109/115/120-B IPC, registered at
Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala and were sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life, which was ordered to be extended to their full life,
and also to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each. At present, the petitioner is lodged
at Central Jail, Patiala. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal
before this Court bearing No.CRA-D-995-DB-2012, which is still pending
before this Court for adjudication.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner
has already undergone more than the sentence required to be undergone for
considering his case for premature release. In this regard, it has been
submitted that the Punjab Government has issued instructions dated
08.08.2011 (Annexure P-1) regarding premature release of 'life convicts'
while exercising powers under Sections 432, 433 and 433-A Cr.P.C. and
Article 161 of the Constitution of India, wherein it is provided that case of
life convict could be considered after undergoing 10 years of actual sentence
and 14 years with remission. It has further been submitted that the petitioner
repeatedly requested the jail authorities to initiate his case for premature
release but when his request was not acceded to, he sent legal notice dated
03.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) to the jail authorities through an Advocate.
Reply to the said legal notice dated 17.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) was sent by
the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, wherein it was conveyed that the
petitioner was not eligible for premature release as per the Punjab
Government Policy dated 08.07.1991. However, it has been argued by
learned counsel for the petitioner that a number of convicts have already
been released by the concerned Authorities on the basis of Government
Policies but case of the petitioner has not even been considered till date. In
addition to this, even case of co-convict Ravdeep Kaur has been considered
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and she was directed to be released on
interim bail till final decision is taken by the Authorities on the issue of her
premature release, subject to final outcome of her appeal. So, case of the
petitioner be also considered for pre-mature release as he his actual
undergone period comes to more than 15 years (as undertrial and after
conviction), even if remission period of 03 years and about 04 months is
excluded.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that as per
the premature release policy of the Government of Punjab, there is no
provision to grant the benefit of premature release for such prisoners, where
the Court has awarded punishment till death or imprisonment till natural life
and therefore, premature release case of the petitioner cannot be initiated.
Learned State counsel has also submitted that due to pendency of appeal
filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence, which is to be
considered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this court, present petition is not
maintainable and the same deserves dismissal. However, he has fairly
admitted that co-convict of the petitioner was released on interim bail vide
order dated 03.10.2023, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate (Duty), Patiala.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and
perused the case file.
6. In the case of Union of India vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan and
others reported as 2016 (7) SCC 192, a Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court, after taking note of the distinctive features in the two
enactments i.e. Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, has
observed as under :-
"101. Once we steer clear of such distinctive
features in the two enactments, one substantive and the
other procedural, one will have no hurdle or difficulty
in working out the different provisions in the two
different enactments without doing any violence to one
or the other. Having thus noted the above aspects on
the punishment prescription in the Penal Code and the
procedural prescription in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, we can authoritatively state that the power
derived by the Courts of law in the various specified
provisions providing for imposition of capital
punishments in the Penal Code such power can be
appropriately exercised by the adjudicating Courts in
the matter of ultimate imposition of punishments in
such a way to ensure that the other procedural
provisions contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure relating to grant of remission, commutation,
suspension etc. on the prescribed authority, not
speaking of similar powers under Articles 72 and 162
of the Constitution which are untouchable, cannot be
held to be or can in any manner overlap the power
already exercised by the Courts of justice.
102. In fact, while saying so we must also point
out that such exercise of power in the imposition of
death penalty or life imprisonment by the Sessions
Judge will get the scrutiny by the Division Bench of the
High Court mandatorily when the penalty is death and
invariably even in respect of life imprisonment gets
scrutinized by the Division Bench by virtue of the
appeal remedy provided in the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Therefore, our conclusion as stated above
can be reinforced by stating that the punishment part of
such specified offences are always examined at least
once after the Sessions Court's verdict by the High
Court and that too by a Division Bench consisting of
two Hon'ble Judges.
103. That apart, in most of such cases where
death penalty or life imprisonment is the punishment
imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the
Division Bench of the High Court, the concerned
convict will get an opportunity to get such verdict
tested by filing further appeal by way of Special Leave
to this Court. By way of abundant caution and as per
the prescribed law of the Code and the criminal
jurisprudence, we can assert that after the initial
finding of guilt of such specified grave offences and the
imposition of penalty either death or life imprisonment
when comes under the scrutiny of the Division Bench of
the High Court, it is only the High Court which derives
the power under the Penal Code, which prescribes the
capital and alternate punishment, to alter the said
punishment with one either for the entirety of the
convict's life or for any specific period of more than 14
years, say 20, 30 or so on depending upon the gravity
of the crime committed and the exercise of judicial
conscience befitting such offence found proved to have
been committed.
104. We, therefore, reiterate that, the power
derived from the Penal Code for any modified
punishment within the punishment provided for in the
Penal Code for such specified offences can only be
exercised by the High Court and in the event of further
appeal only by the Supreme Court and not by any other
Court in this country. To put it differently, the power to
impose a modified punishment providing for any
specific term of incarceration or till the end of the
convict's life as an alternate to death penalty, can be
exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme
Court and not by any other inferior Court."
7. In the case of Savitri vs. State of Haryana and others reported
as 2020(3) RCR (Crl.) 182, before Division Bench of this Court,
petitioner's application for temporary release/parole had been rejected by
Divisional Commissioner, Hisar on the ground that Trial Court i.e. court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar had awarded the petitioner sentence of
imprisonment for life i.e. whole of her natural life without any remission,
consequent to her conviction for the offences under Sections 302, 343 and
120-B of the IPC. This Court considered as to whether the trial Court could
have passed such a sentence and whether the authorities would be precluded
from considering any such application for release on parole till the appeal is
decided. This Court held as under :-
"9. The question whether the trial Court could
have passed such a sentence would undoubtedly be one
of the questions that would arise for consideration in
the Petitioner's criminal appeal against her conviction
and sentence which is pending before this Court.
However, it is unlikely that the said appeal, which
would have to be heard with the connected appeals of
her co-convicts, can be taken up for hearing in the near
future. Further, this would mean that till such question
is decided, the authorities would be precluded from
considering any of her applications for release on
parole. It would be unreasonable, in the circumstances,
for the examination of this question to be postponed to
the hearing of the appeal, particularly since, as will be
seen hereafter, the legal position in this regard is
clear."
8. This Court after referring to paragraphs 103 to 105 of the
judgment titled V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others (supra), held as
under :-
"Thus, after the judgment of the Constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court in V. Sriharan (supra), it is not
open to a court inferior to the High Court and Supreme
Court, while awarding a sentence of life imprisonment
under the Indian Penal Code to further provide for any
specific term of incarceration, or till the end of a
convict's life, or to direct that there shall be no
remission, as an alternate to the death penalty. That
power is available only with the High Courts and the
Supreme Court. Consequently, the trial Court, in the
instant case, while awarding the Petitioner the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life could not
have added the riders that it should be for the rest of
her natural life or that she would not be entitled to any
remission."
9. It was then concluded that in terms of the law explained by the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Sriharan @
Murugan and others (supra), the Trial Court, in its order dated 16.10.2018,
awarding the sentence to the petitioner of rigorous imprisonment of life, was
in error in adding the rider that it would be for the remainder of natural life
and without any remission. The Court also set aside the order of the
Divisional Commissioner, rejecting the petitioner's application for parole on
the aforesaid ground. Not only this, in the concluding paragraph, direction
was given to circulate copy of the judgment and also that of the case of V.
Sriharan @ Murugan and others (supra), to all the Judicial Officers as
well as Jail authorities in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory
of Chandigarh. The concluding paragraph is as under :-
"The Court is informed that notwithstanding the clear
legal position explained in V. Sriharan (supra), the
trial Courts have been adding riders to orders on
sentence passed by them similar to what the trial Court
did in this case. Accordingly, the Court directs that a
soft copy of this judgment together with the judgment of
the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in V.
Sriharan (supra) be circulated by the Chandigarh
Judicial Academy through email to all the judicial
officers as well as the Jail authorities in the States of
Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory of
Chandigarh."
10. In view of the above said legal position enunciated by the
Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Sriharan @
Murugan and others (supra), and further by Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Savitri (supra), there remains no doubt that order of the trial
Court in sentencing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for life, with a
rider to extend to full life, is clearly in violation of the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others (supra).
Such a sentence can be passed either by this Court or by Hon'ble Supreme
Court only.
11. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it is also held that the State
authorities are not debarred from considering the case of the petitioner for
premature release in the light of its policy dated 08.08.2011. Consequent to
the entire discussion of the factual matrix and legal position as above and
taking into account the fact that petitioner has already undergone more than
the actual sentence as required under the policy dated 08.08.2011, the
present petition is hereby allowed.
12. Accordingly, the respondent-authorities are hereby directed to
consider the premature release case of the petitioner in light of its policy
dated 08.08.2011 and the observations made in this order. It is further
directed that till the decision is taken by the competent authority regarding
premature release of the petitioner as per this order, he be released on
interim bail on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
13. It is further clarified that this order is subject to the final outcome
of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, which is still stated to be pending
adjudication before this Court. In case, on disposal of the appeal, it would be
held that petitioner would be required to undergo imprisonment for life till
his natural life, then the petitioner would have to surrender before the
concerned authorities or as may be directed by this Court at the time of
disposal of appeal.
14. Disposed of in the above terms.
15. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
November 12, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
