Manjit Singh vs State of Punjab

N.C. Khichi, J. (Oral)

Petitioner Manjit Singh along with others was tried by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in a case registered under Sections 302/149/307/324 of the Indian Penal Code. He was held guilty vide judgment dated September 22, 1979, copy whereof is Annexure P/1 and was awarded the following sentences :

i) Life imprisonment u/s 302 IPC

ii) R.I. for one year u/s 324/149 IPC

iii) R.I. for six months u/s 323/149 IPC

iv) R.I. for one year u/s 148 IPC

The petitioner filed appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 1259 of 1979) against the aforesaid conviction and sentences which was finally heard and decided on November 21, 1980. The petitioner was found guilty under Section 326 read with 149 instead of section 302/149 and ordered to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ each on two counts. Except this modification in the conviction, the appeal was dismissed on November 21, 1980 vide judgment Annexure P/2. Against this judgment the petitioner filed special leave petition in the Supreme Court and during the pendency of the appeal, he was allowed to be released on bail, the said appeal was dismissed on 13.4.1994 vide judgment Annexure P/3. After the dismissal of the appeal the petitioner surrendered on 18.7.1994 in jail and is now confined behind the bars. He was never served with the warrant of arrest etc.

It is alleged that after 22.9.1979, the Punjab Government has granted various remissions to the convicts which are confined in jail or the convicts who were ordered to be released on bail and as such, he is also entitled to the remissions, granted under the said circulars. It is further alleged that the jail authorities have arbitrarily denied the petitioner the benefit of remissions granted right from 22.9.1979 till 18.7.1994. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, claiming that he is entitled to those remissions which were granted by the Punjab Government during the period he remained on bail i.e. from 26.3.1981 to 18.7.1994.

On receipt of notice, Superintendent Central Jail, Amritsar, filed reply in the form of his own affidavit on behalf of the respondents and took the following stand :

"Para 5. The contents of this para are not admitted as the petitioner was admitted in jail after issuing nonbailable warrants by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. Moreover the petitioner surrendered himself before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, late by one month and six days as the Court issued nonbailable warrants against the said petitioner for 12.6.1994 but the surrendered in court on 18.7.1994 hence the petitioner absconded himself for a period of one month and six days."

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very carefully

It is an admitted fact that the Punjab Government issued various Circular letters granting remissions. Circular letter dated 21.4.1982 (Ann.P.4), 7.11.1985 (Ann.P.5) and 20.8.1986 (Ann.P.6.) are identically worded. The prisoners who were convicted prior to the issuance of thee circulars but subsequently released on bail were held entitled to the remissions as per the scale given therein if they surrender in jail within 15 days of the receipt of notice in this regard from the Superintendent of the Jail concerned from where they had been released on bail.

The Circular Letters dated 10.11.1989 (Ann.P.7) 2.4.1992 (Ann.P.8) and 17.1.1994 (Ann.P.9) are also identically worded and it is mentioned in circulars letters Annexures P.7 and P.8 that the prisoners who have been released on bail shall be granted remissions if they surrender in jail within a period of 15 days after receipt of notice in this regard from the Superintendent Jail concerned from where they had been released on bail. Vide circular Annexure P9, the prisoners in order to enable themselves for the grant of remissions were required to surrender in jail within 15 days of the recent of notice in this regard from the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned from where they had been released on bail.

The material point to be decided in the case is as to when the notice was actually served upon the petitioner by the Superintendent Jail or the Chief Judicial Magistrate etc. and not a day when the notice was issued. There is nothing on record to prove that any notice was issued to the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar or by the Superintendent Jail. Perusal of Annexure R.1 would show that the special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 13.4.1994. Nonbailable warrants were issued to the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar and the same were not executed. The record of the case further shows that the petitioner surrendered himself in the court on 18.7.1994 and was then confined in Jail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was required to issue notice to the petitioner and if the nonbailable warrants dated 12.6.1994 be treated as a notice even then the period of 15 days will have to start after the actual service of the notice. So in the eyes of law the period of 15 days has not yet started because service of the notice was never effected upon the petitioner. Rather the fact remains that the petitioner himself surrendered in Court on 18.7.1994 and was sent to jail. According to clause (ii) of Circular Ann.P.9, 15 days notice was required to be served upon the petitioner. In Piara v. State of Punjab, 1994(1) RCR 85, it was held by a single Bench of this Court that the issuance of a notice to a convict that he should surrender in jail is an essential requirement. Since contrary view was taken by another single Bench, therefore, the matter inCriminal Misc. No. 2774M of 1994, Buta Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. was referred to the Division Bench. The Division Bench after noticing clause (ii) of circular Annexure P.9 and other circulars, answered the reference in the following words :

"A perusal of condition No. (ii) reproduced above, shows that the convicts who are on bail are required to surrender in jail within 15 days on receipt of notice in this regard from the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. This shows that a 15 days notice is a requirement notwithstanding that a convict reports to the jail if he comes to know specifically about the decision of his appeal earlier. Thus, the conclusion is that the view contained in Piara''s case (supra) is in conformity with the requirements and we concur with it."

The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Buta Singh''s case (supra). Since no notice was issued to the petitioner and he himself surrendered in the court and was sent to jail, as such, he is entitled to the remissions granted under various circular letters dated 10.11.1989 (Ann.P.7), 2.4.1992 (Ann.P.8) and 27.1.1994 (Ann.P.9)

In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to take into consideration the remissions granted under various circular letter Annexures P/4 to P/9 while determining the release of the petitioner. Copy of this order be sent to the respondents forthwith for compliance.