Gurdeep Singh vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

Shri Gurdeep Singh has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that he is entitled to all general remissions granted by the Haryana Government right from 8.9.1986 till date for the purpose of determination of his premature release.

The petitioner was arrested in a murder case under Section 302/34, 325/34, 323/34 and 450 IPC registered vide FIR No. 185 dated 7.6.1985 in Police Station Pundri District Kurukshetra. He was tried but was acquitted by the learned trial Court on 8.9.1986. The State filed an appeal in the High Court and under the orders/directions of the High Court the petitioner was taken into custody pending the appeal of the State on 21.6.1988. Finally, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the High Court on 2.9.1992 and the judgment was received by the jail authorities on 30.4.1993.

The case set up by the petitioner is that though he was acquitted by the trial Court on 8.9.1986 and was taken into custody under the orders of the High Court on 21.6.1988 and was finally convicted and sentenced on 2.9.1992, therefore, he should be deemed to be a convicted for all intents and purpose and for getting the benefit of remissions right from 8.9.1986. On the contrary, the stand of the State is that the petitioner was convicted by the High Court on 2.9.1992 for the first time and in these circumstances he is not entitled to any remission prior to 30.4.1993 when the copy of the judgment was received by the jail authorities. In other words, the State wants to treat the petitioner as convict w.e.f. 30.4.1993.

The learned counsel for the petitioner was invited my attention to para No. 56 of the famous authority Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147 where the Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down the following ratio :

"When a person is convicted in appeal, it follows that the appellate court has exercised its power in the place of the original court and the guilt, conviction and sentence must be substituted for and shall have retroactive effect from the date of judgment of the trial court. The appellate conviction must relate back to the date of the trial court''s verdict, and substitute it."

The effect of the above ratio of the Supreme Court would be that though the petitioner was convicted by the High Court vide orders dated 2.9.1992, his conviction shall relate back to the date of his acquittal i.e. 8.9.1986 and from this date the petitioner would be entitled to all the remissions which have been granted by the State Government from time to time after this date. The view on the Hon''ble Supreme Court was also followed in Nauratta Singh v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) RCR 588 His Lordship was pleased to observe in para No. 9 of the said judgment as follows :

"Therefore, it is clear that though the petitioner was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the High Court for the first time on 23.4.1980 the date of his conviction relates back to the trial Court''s verdict dated 5.1.1978, and that being so the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of all instructions issued thereafter, regarding remission. Therefore, it follows that the petitioner will have to be granted the remissions as have been granted to the convicts by the Government under their various instructions subsequent to 5.1.1978, even though the petitioner was on bail for certain periods."

The ratio of the Hon''ble Single Judge applies fully to the facts in hand. No law to the contrary has been cited by the learned DAG.

In these circumstances, I allow the present petition and direct the State to grant the benefit of remissions to the petitioner from time to time starting from 8.9.1986 onwards. The petition stands allowed in above terms.