captioned Sant Ram etc.
The aforesaid paragraph reads thus 516 B a With the exception of females and who were under 20 years of age at the time of companymission of offence, the cases of every companyvicted prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for life iv a who has undergone a period of detention in jail amount ing together with remission earned to 14 years, shall be submitted through the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab for the orders of the State Government.
v. Union of India Ors.
159 167 dated 6th September, 1905.
403 6JJ 76/3456 dated 30th January 1976 companytaining the necessary instructions was issued by the State Government.
After the judgment dated 11.11.1980 in Maru Rams case, a number of life companyvicts filed batch of writ petitions in Writ Petition Nos.
399 of 1983 and 25 1 of 1983.
and those writ petitions were disposed of by an order of this Court dated December 10, 1980.
It seems that the State Government issued various execu tive instructions from time to time either altering or amending the existing instructions by fresh executive in structions specifying the minimum period of actual detention to be undergone by a companyvict sentenced to life imprisonment before his case for premature release companyld be companysidered by the State Government.
43/15783 JJ 2 dated February 27, 1984 clarifying the earli er instructions dated November 28, 1977 and reiterating their inapplicability to life companyvicts whose death sentence has been companymuted to life imprisonment on their mercy peti tions and further stating that companysideration of premature release of such companyvicts shall companytinue to be companysidered in the light of the Government policy decision dated December 12, 1967 thereby making it obligatory for them to undergo 14 years substantive sentence.
865/79 etc.
Admittedly, the State Government did number take up the cases of the respondents for premature release within six months of the Order of the Supreme Court dated 10th December 1980 and deferred the companysideration of premature release till the respondents had companypleted 14 years of substantive sentence.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.
1984 in Writ Petition Nos.
The State of Haryana has preferred these two appeals against the Judgment and Order of the Punjab Haryana High Court dated 21.12.
At the outset, the instructions companytained in paragraph 5 16 B of Punjab Jail Manual which are in the nature of executive instructions by way of guid ance may be referred to which instructions are based on a Government of India resolution No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
1477 and 1478 of 1980 shall stand disposed of in accordance with the judgment of this Court dated November 11, 1980 in Maru Ram Etc.
The companymon order passed in all those petitions reads thus All of these Writ Petitions except Writ Petition Nos.
1984 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl.
Writ Petition No.
v. Union of India Anr.,
399/83 and 25 1/83 respectively passing similar orders directing the State Government to companysider the cases of the respondents for premature release.
365 of 1986 and 245 of 1990.
365 of 1986 was one of the petitioners in the companynected batch of Writ Petition Nos.
Mahabir Singh N.P. and Dalveer Bhandari for the Appel lants.
Ram Diya, the respondent in Criminal Appeal No.
1158 of 1985.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Criminal No.
K. Goel for the Respondents.
1532 1539 of 1980.
