Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.
1. Ranjit Singh was arrested on 27.8.1979 on a charge of murder but he was discharged on 6.11.1979. Thereafter on a private complaint he was tried for that very offence and was sentenced to imprisonment for life on 10.7.1988. Since that day he is confined in jail and had undergone more than 9 years 7 months of actual sentence and had also earned remissions exceeding 7 years. He remained on parole for five days. Throughout the period of sentence he was never found guilty of any jail offence and his conduct remained good. The State of Punjab issued various guidelines in the exercise of powers under Article 161 of the Constitution and in view of these guidelines Ranjit Singh petitioner moved a petition for grant of premature release. His case was considered but the same was rejected vide order Annexure p/4.
2. In the order Annexure p/4 it was mentioned that on 3.1.1990 Ranjit Singh had undergone actual sentence for 8 years 4 months 28 days, and had earned remission for 6 years 11 months 9 days. He also remained on parole for three months 29 days. In jail he did not commit any offence but in September, 1989 he along with his coaccused obtained release on bail from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda under forged orders by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. It was further observed that before the occurrence he enticed away the mother of the person to whom he wanted to marry his daughter and thereafter he tried to grab the land of Harbans Kaur who had started living with him. The party of the deceased merely helped Sher Singh, husband of Harbans Kaur. Thus, conduct of Ranjit Singh was not satisfactory during imprisonment as well as prior to the occurrence and he was not entitled to premature release.
3. Ranjit Singh has now filed the present petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for his premature release. He pleaded that the allegation that he and his coaccused obtained release on bail from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, on the basis of some forged document was absolutely wrong. He was never found guilty of any such incident Rather he and his coaccused were found innocent. The Supreme Court never asked for registration of a case of forgery against him or his coaccused. He had completed the requisite period of sentence and under the instructions Annexure P/1 to P/3 he was entitled to premature release.
4. In reply filed to the petition the respondents admitted that as on 28.3.1991 the petitioner had undergone actual sentence for 9 years 6 months 18 days inclusive of under trial period and had earned remission of 7 years 6 months 24 days. He was allowed parole for 6 months 10 days. He, however, obtained his release on bail on the basis of a forged order by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the forgery could not be without his knowledge or consent. It was further contended that even before his conviction in the present case he was involved in another case of murder of Harnek Singh and that case was still pending.
5. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to condition No. 6 of the guidelines in Annexure P/3 according to which case of a life convict is to be considered for premature release. If he has undergone total imprisonment of 24 years inclusive of remissions and 8/2 years of actual sentence. Admittedly the petitioner has undergone more than the prescribed sentence and as such was eligible for consideration for his premature release. The petitioner''s case was rejected on the ground that the motive for the offence was a dispute about the land which was in possession of Sher Singh but was owned by his wife Harbans Kaur who had started living with Ranjit Singh and Ranjit Singh wanted to take forcible possession of that land. Gurpiar Singh a coaccused of the petitioner fired gun shots which resulted in the death of Kulwant Singh. In fact Ranjit Singh had not caused any injury to the deceased. The contention of the learned counsel holds good. The motive for the occurrence is to be considered at the time of conviction and it is hardly relevant when the case for premature release is under consideration. The circumstances and the motive for the offence would not change even after 20 years of sentence. In the case of Harbhahan Singh v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, 1988(2) R.C.R. 125 it was held :
"According to the Jail Mnual the recommendation of the Jail Superintendent is of (sic) in which the murder was committed."
Admittedly the petitioner had not committed any jail offence. The only contention against him was that he had obtained his release on the basis of an order alleged to have been issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court which in fact was a forged one but there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had taken any part in the forgery of the document. When such an order was obtained the petitioner was in the jail. It is correct that he enjoyed the fruits of forgery committed by some one else but he himself cannot be held liable for the commission to forgery and this ground was not available to the respondents to reject his case for premature release.
7. As regards the murder of Harnek Singh alleged to have been committed by the petitioner it was contended that the petitioner was acquitted, by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide judgment dated 11.12.1982 and appeal filed by the State against that judgment was dismissed by this Court on 7.5.1991. Copy of that judgment is Annexure p/7. As murder of Harnek Singh was not proved to have been committed by the petitioner, that ground too did not furnish a cogent reason for declining the prayer of the petitioner for his premature release. Moreover, a similar petition filed by Gurpiar Singh coaccused of the petitioner was allowed on May 28, 1991. Copy of the judgment is Annexure p/8.
8. As a result, I accept this petition and find that the case of the petitioner for his premature release cannot be rejected on the grounds mentioned in Annexure p/4 and the petitioner is entitled to premature release in view of the guidelines contained in Annexure p/3. The respondents are therefore, directed to grant premature release to the petitioner forthwith on usual terms and conditions.
