Man Mohan Sahani vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The matter here concerns the grant of remissions to the petitioner Man Mohan Sahani, now undergoing imprisonment for life.

The petitioner Man Mohan Sahani was tried for murder and was acquired by the Sessions Judge, Karnal, by his order of April 26, 1977. This acquittal was, however, later up set in appeal by the High Court on December 21, 1979, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. It was in pursuance of this order that Judicial Magistrate Karnal, passed an order that the petitioner be detained in jail to undergo the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon him. The petitioner thereupon surrendered and his detention in Jail commenced from January 28, 1980. It may be mentioned here that earlier the petitioner had been detained as an undertrial prisoner from April 26, 1976 to April 26, 1977.

It will be seen that the petitioner remained at liberty from the date of his acquittal, that is, April 26, 1977 till January 28, 1980, when in pursuance of his conviction by the High Court, he came to be detained in Jail to undergo the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. The remissions new claimed by the petitioner all pertain to this period, that is, the period falling between April 26, 1977 to January 23, 1980. During this period, four special remissions were granted under Article 161 of the Constitution of India the first being for a year by the order of June 21, 1977, next, four months by the order of August 14, 1977, then another two months by the order of August 14, 1977 and finally, three months by the order of October 4, 1979. According to the return filed on behalf of the State of Haryana and the Jail Superintendent, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of these remissions as by the instructions issued by the Government on January 14, 1985, annexure R/1, it was only convicted prisoners confined in Jail at that time, who were, entitled to the benefit of these remissions. Prisoners on bail or those whose sentence had been suspended were excluded. Counsel for the State thus argued that the petitioner not being confined in Jail, at the relevant time, could not claim the benefit of these remissions.

The short answer to the rationale for the denial of remissions to the petitioner is provided by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maru Ram etc. v. Union of India and others, A.I.R. 1980 Supreme Court 2147, where the Court had occasion to consider the provisions of Section 433 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. There it was held "when a person is convicted in appeal, it follow 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 retrospective effect from the date of the judgment of the trial Court. The appellant''s conviction must relate back to the date of the trial Court''s verdict and substituted." On this reasoning the benefit of Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was extended to persons who had been acquitted before Section 433A came into force and were convicted after it came on to the statute book.

On a parity 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 out on ball at the time of the remissions and thus entitled to the benefit thereof.

6.The petitioner is accordingly entitled to the benefit of the remissions claimed and the authorities concerned are consequently directed to consider his case for release from Jail after allowing him such benefit.

This writ petition in accordingly hereby accepted.