Manmohan Singh Gujral, J.:— This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Sukhdev Singh who is undergoing life imprisonment in the District Jail, Sangrur, for an offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioner is that during the trial he had given his age as 19 or 20 years when his statement under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (old) was recorded and that in the warrant by which he was sent to custody again the same age was mentioned. It is further asserted that in view of this the respondent ought to have accepted his age to be below twenty years at the time of the commission of the offence and given him the benefit of paragraph 516-B(b), of the Punjab Jail Manual and that his case ought to have been forwarded for the orders of the State Government after he had suffered imprisonment for ten years including remissions.
2. The petition is contested on behalf of the respondent through the affidavit of Shri Prakash Chand, Inspector-General of Prisons, Punjab, and it is stated that under instructions issued vide letter No. 11957-???-72/26645, dated 25th October, 1972, actual date of birth of the convict his to be determined before he is to be considered for release under para 516-B(b).
3. It is further added that the petitioner was asked to produce documentary evidence in support of the actual date of birth but as he failed to do so his case could not be considered under the relevant paragraph of the Punjab Jail Manual.
4. The principal and in fact the only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the age of the petitioner having been recorded as 19/20 years in the judgment and in the commitment warrant, the Jail authorities had to jurisdiction to proceed to determine the age for the purpose of giving him benefit of paragraph 516-B(b) of the Punjab Jail Manual and that they were bound to accept his age as recorded in the warrant and proceed of deal with his case accordingly.
5. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Gian Chand v. The State of Haryana,1 wherein the following observations appear:—
“In the instant case, the petitioner was aged 20 years and, therefore, the benefit of the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act should have been given to him. In his judgment, the Sessions Judge simply remarked that at time of the framing of the charge on 6th March, 1972, the age of the petitioner was recorded as 22 years and that the appellant in any case did not appear to be below 21 years of age. These observations cannot take the place of positive proof. The Court cannot determine the age of the accused from his face. The observations of the Court regarding the age of the accused is no evidence against the accused. His unrebutted statement that he was aged 20 years must, therefore, prevail. It is, therefore, held that the age of the petitioner was less than 21 years at the time of his conviction by the trial Court and, therefore, the provisions of section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act are applicable”
6. The above observations were made in a case where the accused were given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. Under section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act the law gives a right to the accused, who is under 21 years of age at the time of the recording of the sentence, not to be sentenced to imprisonment unless the Court forms the opinion that having regard to the character of the offender it would not be desirable to give the benefit of this provision. The position under the Punjab Jail Manual is, however, entirely different and the observations in Gian Chand's case are, therefore, not attracted in the present situation. Under the Punjab Jail Manual a person sentenced to imprisonment has to undergo imprisonment for the period of his actual life and it is for the authorities to fire him the benefit of a lesser sentence in certain situations. It is open to the authorities in that case to determine what is the actual age of the prisoner. The fact that the accused in his own statement has mentioned a certain age or that the Court has noticed the age of the accused without giving a clear finding would not debar the Jail authorities from determining the actual date of birth in order to find out whether the convict was entitled to any remission after he had served ten years of imprisonment. The instructions issued vide letter No. 11957-3JJ-72/26645, dated 25th October, 1972, in a may provide amendment to paragraph 516-B(b) of the Punjab Jail Manual and have to be read as such. This letter clearly mentions that for the purpose of para 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual the proof the actual date of the commission of the offence and the actual date of birth is to be obtain before the case is forwarded to the Government in view of this letter, it is not open to the petitioned to contend that the Jail authorities committed any error in asking the accused to give proof of his age. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss it. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
7. Petition dismissed.