Om Parkash vs Haryana State

R.L. Anand, J.

Heard. Petitioner Om Parkash has filed the present petition praying that he is entitled to the benefit of remission given by the Government vide various circulars during the period when he was on bail i.e. 17.8.1983 to 19.4.1995. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was arrested in FIR No. 221 dated 17.5.1980 registered in police station Ratia under Sections 302, IPC etc. on 30.5.1980. A trial was conducted and the trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 3.10.1981 convicted and sentenced him. He filed an appeal before the Hon''ble High Court, which was dismissed. Later on, he went to the Hon''ble Supreme Court and filed S.L.P. The Hon''ble Supreme Court allowed him bail during the pendency of appeal and he came out from the jail on 17.8.1983. Finally, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 19.4.1994. The petitioner submits that he is entitled to the remissions which have been announced by the State Government vide various circulars starting from 17.8.1983 to 19.4.1994.

The stand of the petitioner is being disputed by the State on the ground that the petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of remissions under the various circulars issued during the period when the petitioner was on bail because he was not in actual custody of the State.

Now the point for determination would be whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the remissions given by the Haryana Government vide different circulars which were issued by it starting from 17.8.1983 to 19.4.1994 when finally the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this High Court Mohan Singh v. State of Haryana, reported as 1996(1) Recent CR 671 , in which it was held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of remissions which were given by the Haryana Government when the petitioner remained on bail pending his appeal and surrendered before the authorities after the dismissal of the appeal. The ratio of the above judgment can be made applicable to the facts in hand also. It was held by the Hon''ble Lordship as follows :

"........Admittedly the petitioner after the dismissal of his appeal by this court had surrendered to the jail authorities to undergo the unexpired portion of his sentence. Likewise, he was allowed bail by the Apex Court and when his appeal was dismissed by the Apex Court, he again surrendered to the jail authorities on 16.7.1993 to undergo the unexpired portion of his sentence. Therefore, as per these circulars, the petitioner is entitled to remissions. ....."

This court is not in a position to subscribe to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the State that since the petitioner has not served the actual sentence right from 17.8.1983 to 19.4.1994, therefore he is not entitled to the benefit of remissions given by the State Government vide different circulars, in view of the citation which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Take this aspect from a different angle which will also clinch that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of remissions. Suppose an appeal of a person is allowed by the High Court after he sustained conviction from the trial court and the State goes in appeal before the Supreme Court which is disposed of after several years. In case the Supreme Court sets aside the judgment of the High Court and convicts the person, in that eventuality it has been held by the Supreme Court that its judgment shall relate back to the date of his acquittal and he will be entitled to all the remissions which were given to an individual had he remained in custody. In the present case the petitioner immediately on dismissal of his appeal surrendered before the jail authorities. He was granted bail by the competent court of jurisdiction. If a person who has since been acquitted by the High Court can get the benefit of the remissions, why not a person who has been granted bail only by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.

The object of these remissions is to grant relief to a person who is either on bail or in custody. The aspect of custody is immaterial for the purpose of benefit of special remissions. Further if the State Govt. is inclined to give the special remissions to a person who proceeds on furlough or parole, how a person like the petitioner can be discriminated when a person enjoys all the benefits of parole or furlough and he does not serve the actual sentence. The special relief is granted to him so that he may see his family members or perform other work which is essential in his family. From that angle also the stand of the respondentState does not appear to be justified.

Resultantly, I allow this petition and declare that the petitioner will be entitled to the benefit of the remissions given by the State Govt. vide various circulars from 17.8.1983 to 19.4.1994, of course subject to the maximum ceiling which has been imposed by the State Government.