Amrik Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Rathor, J.

The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was awarded sentence of five years R.I. by the trial Court. He challenged his conviction by way of filing a criminal appeal No. 11/SB of 1986 in this Court. His appeal was dismissed on merit but sentence of five years R.I. awarded by the trial Court was reduced to that of two years. The petitioner surrendered before the jail authorities on 18.3.1991 before approaching the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in SLP which in due course was also dismissed. So besides having spent days in judicial custody during the trial, the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment in Central Jail, Ambala since 18.3.1991.

Through this petition, the petitioner has sought a mandamus from this Court directing the respondent to give benefit of 120 days of remissions, awarded on 28.8.1987 and 17.3.1988 so granted to all the detenus by the then Government headed by Ch. Devi Lal as Chief Minister of Haryana. In support of this prayer of his, the petitioner has placed reliance on the instructions of the Government dated 16.3.1988, which have been filed as Annexure R.1. by the State with its reply.

Admittedly, the petitioner was on bail with effect from 21.2.1986 till 18.3.1991. As such on 18.8.1987 as well as on 17.3.1988, the petitioner was on bail during the pendency of his appeal in the High Court. The short point now involved is as to whether he is entitled to grant of remissions in terms of instructions Annexure R.I. during the period he was on bail. The instructions Annexure R.I. have categorised the cases of different convicts according to amount of sentence they were undergoing on, 5.1.1988 and also amount of remissions available to them. Admittedly, petitioner was in the jail. So being on bail, he is entitled to the remission on the basis of paragraph 2 of the instructions which read as under :

"Remission will be also granted to all the convicts who were on parole/furlough form the jail on 25.1.1988 subject to the condition that they surrender at the jail on the due date after the expiry of parole/furlough period for undergoing the unexpired portions of their sentences."

A bare reading of this para of the instructions makes it clear that any detenu who was on parole/furlough from jail on 25.1.1988 was also entitled to remissions as granted to other detenus by the Government, headed by Ch. Devi Lal. The parole and furlough are granted by the jail authorities. Bail is granted while suspending the sentence by the appellate Court. As such, a detenu''s being on parole/furlough is identical with his release on bail till the final decision of the appeal against the order of conviction passed by the appellate Court.

Mr. Yadav, AAG, Haryana, has vehemently argued that the petitioner is not entitled to this benefit of grant of remissions of 120 days as granted by the Government of Ch. Devi Lal as he was on bail and instructions Annexure R1 are of no avail to the petitioner.

I regret to accept the contention of Mr. Yadav. The controversy in this case is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court reported as Man Mohan Sahni v. State of Haryana, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 292. In this reported case, the petitioner was acquitted of murder charge by the Sessions Judge, Karnal vide order dated 26.4.1977. However, in appeal High Court set aside his acquittal and convicted him for life imprisonment vide order dated March 21, 1979. The precise point involved was as to whether he was entitled to concession of remission earned by other detenus during the period he was acquitted by the trial Court and convicted by the High Court. This Court answered the proposition in the affirmative holding that the order of the Appellate Court shall relate back to the order of trial Court and as such during this period all remissions earned by other detenus in the jail and so granted to them shall also be available to him after he was lodged in jail after the conviction by the Appellate Court as well.

After considering the ratio of judgment reported as Maru Ram etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 2147 single Bench Judge of this Court held as follows :

"On a partity of reasoning, in the present case too, the conviction of the petitioner by the High Court must relate back to the date of the trial Court''s verdict, from which it would, therefore, follow that the petitioner, for purposes of the remission claimed, must be deemed to have been convicted and put on bail at the time of the remissions and thus entitled to the benefit thereof."

There is no doubt left in my mind that this judgment in Man Mohan Sahni''s case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, in hand, rather this case stands on better footing as the petitioner was on bail by the order of the Court. He is entitled to earn the remissions earned by other detenus during the period he was on bail. This petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the authorities to take into consideration the remissions of 120 days earned by him on 28.8.1987 and 17.3.1988, as so granted by the Government of Ch. Devi Lal while calculating the period of sentence of two years as ordered by this Court in appeal No. 11SB of 1986. The petition stands disposed of in the terms communicated above.