Kala Singh vs State of Punjab through Secretary, Home

R.L. Anand, J.

The petitioner in this case is seeking the benefit of remissions by putting up the case as follows :

The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 148, 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Court of Session, Faridkot on 14th November, 1997. He filed an appeal in the High Court. His appeal was admitted. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner was granted bail. Consequently, the petitioner was released on bail on 3rd February, 1993. The appeal filed by the petitioner was ultimately dismissed on 18th September, 1995 and the petitioner consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, surrendered before the jail authorities on 18th December, 1995 in order to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

The short point which survives for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of remission when he remained on bail with effect from 3rd February 1993 upto 17th December, 1995. The benefit of remission has been declined by the State on the plea that the petitioner was not a prisoner as he was not serving the sentence during the relevant time.

The State of Punjab vide order dated 27th January, 1994 decided to grant special remissions to various prisoners by adopting different scales. The relevant portion of the order is as follows :

"Special Remission

The Governor of Punjab is further pleased to allow special remission to prisoners on the following scales :

i) Prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for more than 10 years or for life 1 year

ii) Prisoners undergoing sentence of more than 5 years and upto 10 years imprisonment 8 months

iii) Prisoners undergoing sentence of more than 2 years and upto 5 years imprisonment. 6 months

iv) Prisoners undergoing sentence of more than 1 year and upto 2 years imprisonment. 4 months

v) Prisoners undergoing sentence upto 1 year imprisonment. 2 months

The special remission is subject to the following conditions :

i) The prisoners who are on parole/furlough shall be allowed the benefit only in case they report back in jail in time.

ii) The prisoners who have been released on bail shall be allowed the benefit only if they surrender in jail within 15 days of receipt of notice in this regard from the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned from where they had been released on bail."

The words "15 days of receipt of notice in this regard from the Chief Judicial Magistrate" are of consequent importance. Meaning thereby that a prisoner would be deprived of the benefit of special remission only if inspite of the receipt of notice from the Chief Judicial Magistrate he does not obey his commands.

The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to the written statement filed by the State and the relevant portion of the written statement can be quoted as follows :

"Admitted to the extent that petitioner was arrested on 7th July, 1991 and he was convicted on 14.11.1992. Petitioner was released on bail on 3.2.1993. Petitioner''s appeal was dismissed on 18th September, 1995. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, issued rearrest warrant of petitioner for 4.12.1995 but petitioner did not surrender on 4.12.1995. The petitioner surrendered in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, on 7.12.1995 to undergo his remaining sentence. Since petitioner did not surrender on 4.12.1995, he has not been granted Govt. remissions which were announced during the period the petitioner remained on bail i.e. from 3.2.1993 to 7.12.1995. Two Govt. remissions dated 27.1.1994 for 8 months and dated 6.8.1995 for 12 months were announced during this period. Govt. remission dated 16.12.96 has already been granted to petitioner."

Thus a reading of the relevant portion of the written statement would show that there is no categorical denial on the part of the State that notice was served on the petitioner. What it appears to me is that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued the warrants of arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner was not served and for this reason he could not be arrested. In any way, the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of his appeal on issuance of the arrest warrants against the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. On learning so, the petitioner voluntarily surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 18th December, 1995. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioner was even served in consequence of the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court.

In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the State Government has not acted judiciously and has wrongly withheld the benefit of two remissions of 20 months announced on 27th January, 1994 and 6th March, 1995. Directions are, therefore, given to the State authorities to give benefit of these remissions to the petitioner.

The petition is allowed.