Gurdial Singh vs State of Punjab

S D. Bajaj, J.

Detenupetitioner Gurdial Singh is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Ludhiana, persuant to his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 28th September, 1973. In terms of Supreme Court order dated 8th February, 1979, the petitioner remained on bail during the period 8th February, 1979 to 4th August, 1989. The solitary point for determination in Cr. W.P. No. 1064 of 1990 is whether the petitioner is entitled to 8 years 2 months and 25 days of remission detailed in para 4 of the petition. The claim is based on circular letters Annexures P1 to P8.

In reply it was asserted that 5 years 1 month and 7 days remission legally permissible has been duly allowed to the detenu petitioner and that remissions granted during the period 8th February, 1979 to 4th August, 1989 are not legally admissible to the petitioner because he did not surrender to jail custody voluntarily on 27th September, 1988 when his appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

I have heard Shri V.K. Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mrs. Sudershan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for State and have carefully perused the relevant material on record.

Identical legal position was adverted to by the Supreme Court in Jai Parkash and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 377 (SC) : AIR 1981 Supreme Court 2225, wherein their Lordships observed :

"The petitioners though convicted prior to 14th August, 1977 that is the date of visit of the Hon''ble Minister to the Jail were granted bail before the said date. As such they are not entitled to the said remission in accordance with the order of Governor of Haryana. Secondly, all these petitioners did not surrender in the jail for undergoing the unexpired portion of their sentences immediately after their appeals were dismissed by the High Court. On the other hand, the petitioner No 1 whose appeal was dismissed on 2891978 did not surrender either to the Jail or to the Magistrate for serving out the remaining part of sentence till he was arrested on 2911979 in pursuance of the warrant issued by the Court. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 who were released on bail by the High Court during the pendency of their appeal did not surrender in the Jail immediately after their appeal was dismissed on 8121978. They surrendered themselves to the Magistrate only on 1621979 to serve out the remaining part of their sentence. As such, it cannot be said that they have surrendered in jail for undergoing their unexpired period of sentence immediately after their appeals were dismissed and so they are not eligible for remissions as envisaged in the said Government order dated 1481977 referred to hereinbefore.

It is clear and evident from this letter that convicts who were on parol from jail on the date and time of the visit of the Chief Minister to the Jail will be granted remissions on condition that the surrender at the jail on the due date after expiry of parole period for undergoing the unexpired period of their sentence. This means that a convict in order to get the benefit of remission as directed by the said order issued under Article 161 of the Constitution of India has to surrender voluntarily at the Jail after expiry of bail. In the instant case, petitionr No. 1 did not surrender in jail or before Magistrate after his appeal was dismissed by the High Court and the petitioner No. 1 had been arrested under warrant of arrest as he did not surrender in jail after his appeal was dismissed. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 who were on bail also did not surrender immediately after dismissal of their appeal but they surrendered themselves after two months of dismissal their appeal. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners are entitled to the remissions envisaged in the said Government order dated 11/14th January, 1985. The letter of the respondent No. 3 the Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh, i.e. D.O. Letter No. 4665/1983GI/G4/RIG84 dated 2441985 is quite in accordance with the Government order made on 11/14th January, 1985 and the respondent No. 3 in fact quoted para 2 of the said letter which contains the necessary requisite for grant of remissions from sentence. The said D.O. letter of the respondent No. 3 cannot therefore be challenged as in violation of Para 63 of the Punjab Jail Manual nor it is contrary to the directions contained in the aforesaid order."

The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any remissions granted to the other detenus during the period 8th February, 1979 to 4th August, 1989.

It way, however be pointed out that for the period 28th September, 1973 to 7th February, 1979 the petitioner is entitled to remissions. The same is the position of remissions earned after 8th February, 1989 till date. Respondent State would therefore, see that the petitioner gets remissions for this period and the same are included in 5 years 1 month and 7 days of remission already granted to the petitioner.

Subject to the observations aforesaid, there is hardly any merit in the Criminal Writ. Dismissed.