Manjeet Singh vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J. (Oral)

By this order I will dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 28014M of 1998 titled as Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana and Criminal Misc. No. 28017M of 1998 titled as Mehar Singh v. State of Haryana, as in the opinion of this Court both the petitions case be disposed of by one order as common question of law and fact is involved. The facts are being taken from the petition titled as Manjeet Singh Versus State of Haryana.

Manjeet Singh and Mehar Singh aforesaid alongwith others were tried in FIR No. 33 dated 12.5.1996 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 302, 447 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station Chhapper, District Ambala. These petitioners were arrested on 17.5.1986. They were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court under Section 304 Part I on 28.8.1987. The petitioners filed appeal before the High Court and the same was disposed on 24.7.1989. The appeal of Mehar Singh, Manjeet Singh and that of one Iqbal Singh was dismissed. Still not satisfied with the orders of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, these two petitioners filed Special Leave Petition Criminal Appeal No. 270 of 1990 in the Supreme Court. The Hon''ble Supreme Court admitted that appeal and granted bail to Mehar Singh and Manjit Singh on 24.9.1991. Sarvshri Manjeet Singh and Mehar Singh were released on bail on 26.9.1991. Under the orders of the Hon''ble Supreme Court they remained on bail upto 20.2.1997. The petitioners surrendered in jail on 21.2.1997 consequent upon dismissal of their appeal by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 4.12.96. The case set up by both the petitioners is that they are entitled to the remission announced by the State Government from time to time in between 26.9.1991 to 22.2.1997. This aspect of the case is being deprived by the Government on the plea that by virtue of para No. 637 of the Jail Mannual, they are not entitled to the remissions. The main defence of the State is that as the petitioners were on bail and their sentence was temporarily suspended by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and in these circumstances they are not entitled to the benefit of the remissions.

Shri P.C. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the various paras of the Jail Mannual and its scheme. The learned counsel submitted that the benefit of which the petitioners are claiming from this Court are those remissions which have been announced by the State Government by way of special remissions and these remissions are separate from the one which are defined in the various paras of the Punjab Jail Manual. On the contrary, the learned D.A.G. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioners were not in custody. They are not entitled to any remissions irrespective of the fact that those remissions have been declared by the State Government, the remissions under Article 161 of the Constitution of India or under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the statutory remissions laid down in the Jail Mannual. Refuting the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Mr. Chaudhary has advanced arguments that the approach of the State is not realistic when the benefit of the special remissions is being extended to the persons granted parole, furlough or probationary release. The counsel has submitted that it was never the intention of the State that the benefit of special remissions shall only confine to the persons who are either in jail or those who have surrendered in jail or who are on parole for furlough or probationary release. Learned counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to an order by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 26967M of 1997 titled as Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana in which I have followed the order of Hon''ble Mr. Justice V.S. Aggarwal, passed in Criminal Misc. No. 2657M of 1996 titled as Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana. Subsequent to the passing of the aforesaid order this court passed another order dated 12.11.1998 in Criminal Misc. No. 26398M of 1998 Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana wherein a similar situation as in hand came up for adjudication. This Bench then have had an occasion to consider a Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh reported as 1994(3) Recent Criminal Reports 379, the Single Bench of this Court in Man Mohan Sahni v. State of Haryana, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 292 and yet another judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as 1990 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 144 Nalamolu Appla Swamy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court made the following observations :

"We find merit in contention because the scheme of remissions formulated under the Government order is with reference to the period of sentence actually undergone by different classes of prisoners and in the case of some, the period of actual sentence together with the remissions earned for reckoning the total sentence. The government order does not stipulate that in order to get the benefit of remission, the prisoners must actually be in jail on the date the government order was issued."

When a charge against an undertrial stands proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, two findings are given by the trial Court. One is that of conviction and the other is with regard to the awarding of the sentence. In other words, conviction and sentence are two separate terms. The moment a person is convicted, he becomes stigmatic. He is a convict. If he is granted bail by the appellate Court, it is so by the virtue of the provisions of Section 389 Cr.P.C. and his sentence stands suspended. His conviction is not suspended. With the dismissal of appeal of such a convict, the stigma of conviction is not wiped off. Para 637 of the Punjab Jail Mannual which was subject matter for interpretation in Jai Prakash and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1987(2) R.C.R. 377 is read between the lines which talks of remissions that are earned by a convict under the statute i.e. under the Jail Mannual itself. Para 637 only states that if a person remains on bail or his sentence stands suspended and thereafter such a convict is readmitted in jail, how he will be entitled to the benefit of remissions after his entry inside the jail. This para 637 does not as such override remissions which are announced by the State Government by way of special remissions. The object of these special remissions is totally different. There is logic in the submission of Mr. Chaudhary that when a person gets benefits of special remissions announced by the State Government if he proceeds on furlough or parole or probationary release, how the present petitioners can be discriminated. In this view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of special remissions which have been announced by the State Government during the period when the petitioner remained on bail under the orders of the Supreme Court i.e. from 26.9.1991 to 21.2.1997 irrespective of the fact that they were not in custody. The citation which has been relied upon by the learned Deputy Advocate General deals with a separate situation. In this view of the matter, I allow both the Criminal Miscellaneous and give directions to the State Government to extend the benefit of the special remission announced by the State Government between 26.9.1991 to 21.2.1997 and therefore to consider their case for release. It may be mentioned here that after getting benefit of the special remissions, the petitioners shall serve the sentence as per norms prescribed by law.

Crl. Misc. allowed.