Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Sewak Singh has filed the present petition praying that his case for premature release should be considered under the instructions issued by the Punjab Govt. on 21.4.1972 because these instructions are not superseded by the instructions issued on 8.7.1991. 2. According to the petitioner, he has been undergoing imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC, in pursuance to an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, on 1.3.1990. He further submitted that as for more than one year he has remained in the open air jail, Nabha, his case for premature release has got to be considered as per government instructions of 1972, according to which he is required to undergo 7-1/2 years actual substantive sentence while he has undergone 9 years 0 months and 11 days of actual sentence excluding the period of 3 months spent by him while undertrial. He has earned remissions of 9 years and thus, total sentence undergone by him comes to 18 years 0 months and 11 days. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the case of the petitioner has got to be dealt with under the 1972 instructions and the order Annexure P1 passed by the Inspector General of Prisons is without jurisdiction and should be set aside and necessary instructions issued to the government to consider his case for premature release in accordance with law. 3. On behalf of the respondents, the Dy. Inspector General of Prisons has filed a written reply in which it has been submitted that the special benefit which was admissible to the petitioner under the Punjab Govt. instructions dated 21.4.1972 has already been given to him while considering his case for premature release. It has also been submitted that the petitioner had been found guilty of being involved in a double murder and so his case for premature release is neither covered under the main policy instructions dated 8.7.1991 nor under any instructions issued from time to time and, therefore, no relief could be granted to him. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the question as to whether the government instructions dated 21.4.1972 have been superseded by the notification dated 8.7.1991 came up for consideration before this Court in Bhajan Singh v. Punjab State 1984(2) RCR, 250 : [1985(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 688 (Pb. & Hry.)]. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the question as to whether the government instructions dated 21.4.1972 have been superseded by the notification dated 8.7.1991 came up for consideration before this Court in Bhajan Singh v. Punjab State 1984(2) RCR, 250 : [1985(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 688 (Pb. & Hry.)]. After taking into consideration the circulars involved, this Court came to the conclusion that the policy decisions are issued by the State Gvvernment from time to time by deriving powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. Even circular dated 8.7.1991 makes a mention of Section 433-A, Cr. P.C. and Article 161 of the Constitution of India, but the State Government in its wisdom always thought proper not to supersede the policy decisions as contained in the circular dated 21.4.1971 and there is a valid reason for this. 5. It is not the case of the State that after the decision in the aforementioned case, any subsequent instructions have been issued which would warrant reconsideration of the decision. In this view of the matter, the present case is covered by the judgment reported as Bhajan Singh v. Punjab State (supra) and the papers of the petitioner would have to be processed in the light of the instructions dated 21.4.1972. 6. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the premature release case of the petitioner within a period of 3 months.