Jai Singh vs State of Haryana

Amar Dutt, J.—The petitioner Jai Singh, who is serving sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment u/s 376 (PC pursuant to an order passed by the Apex Court on 23.7.1999, asserts that he has already undergone the following sentence :

Years

Months

Days,

i) Under trial period from 19.9.1992 to 25.9.1992.

00

00

07

ii) Actual sentence undergone from 14.3.95 to 9.10.2000

05

06

26

Total Actual undergone

05

07

03

iii) Remissions earned

01

06

19

Total undergone 07

01

22

iv) Period of parole availed

00

06

16

and the respondents are denying him the benefit or 1 year 6 months 19 days of remissions which have been earned by him and has not counted the 6 months 16 days'' period which he had spent on parole towards the computation of the sentence. The remissions, it is said, are being denied to him on account of the fact that according to the State he is not entitled to the benefit thereof as the crime committed by him was heinous in nature and, therefore, as per the judicial precedents he could not be treated differently from other similarly placed convicts, who are denied the benefit thereof, The petitioner seeks to rely on the provisions regarding the counting of the period spent by him on parole towards the period of a sentence on the basis of the taw laid down in Sunil Fulchand Shah Vs. Union of India and Others, and State of Haryana v. Nauratta Singh, 2000(2) RCR 294.

2, In the reply filed by Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala, the stand taken by the Stale was sought to be justified on the basis of Govt. Instructions issued on 14.8.1995, 14.8.1996 and 31.10.1996 according to which prisoners convicted u/s 376 IPC are not entitled to the benefit of the remissions. Regarding the second submission, the decision of this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 9025-M of 1997 decided on 9.11.1999 was sought to be relied upon for justifying the refusal to count the parole period towards the period of sentence already undergone. Factual matrix of the assertions about the period spent by the petitioner in jail was not controverted and it was submitted that view taken by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 21747-M of 1998, Suresh Kumar v. The State of Hary-ana, decided on 6.7.1999, has been challenged in the apex Court and so the submission that the petitioner could not be denied the benefit of the remissions merely on account of the fact that he was serving sentence in a heinous offence could not be accepted. During the course of arguments, the only challenge sought to be made is with regard to the refusal of the State to count remissions that have accrued to the petitioner on account of the fact that he is serving sentence u/s 376 IPC.

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

In the present case the petitioner is challenging the refusal of the respondents to extend the benefit of remissions granted to the prisoners on the ground that he had committed heinous offence of rape as also the fact that the period spent by him on parole was not being counted towards the sentence served by him. Mr. P.C. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments did not seriously press the second submission made by him presumably in view of the fact that the provisions of Section 9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 debar the counting of the period spent by a prisoner on parole towards the period of sentence but he assailed the refusal of the respondents to give the petitioner the benefit of remissions that have been granted to other prisoners on the basis of the view taken by this Court in Crl.Misc. No. 21746-M of 1998. The applicability of this judgment was initially contented (contested ?) on the ground taht the State had filed an appeal before the Apex Court but when the orders passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1487 of 2000 was produced, the challenge was no longer available to the State for the challenge to the extension of special remissions to cases of dowry death, which was disallowed by the State Government on the basis of some notifications which are being relied upon in this case was not pressed and therefore, the view of this Court still holds the field. The result is that it was not open to the State white granting general remissions to carve out special exceptions in cases, which according to it could be termed as heinous offences.

Consequently, the petition is accepted and the State is directed to release the petitioner, if after counting the remissions, to which he is entitled, it is found that he has served the sentence imposed upon him.

Petition allowed.