Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 232 (PNJ)

Jai Singh v. State Of Haryana

2001-02-16

V.M.JAIN

body2001
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Misc. 22580-M of 2000, and Criminal Misc. 28926-M of 2000, as common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions. 2. Criminal Misc. 28926-M of 2000 has been filed by accused- petitioner, Gulzar Singh, seeking a direction to the respondents to include the period of parole, availed by the petitioner, in the actual sentence, undergone by him, while Criminal Misc. 22580-M of 2000 is a petition received through jail from various inmates of the jail. For facility of reference, the facts, detailed in Criminal Misc. 22580-M of 2000, which was received from various inmates of the jail, may be narrated. 3. In the petition, received from the various inmates of the jail, it was alleged that Honble Mr. Justice Swatantar Kumar of this Court had inspected the District Jail, Karnal, on 15.5.1999 and at that time, various convicts had submitted applications for counting the period of parole towards the actual sentence. The Honble Judge had ordered that the period of parole be counted towards the actual period of sentence. A copy of the order dated 15.5.1999, passed by Honble Mr. Justice Swatantar Kumar was attached along with the said petition. A copy for another order dated 15.12.1999, passed by this Court, was also attached along with the said petition. It was alleged that the orders, passed by Honble Mr. Justice Swatantar Kumar, might be treated for the benefit of all the convicts, so that each convict might not have to approach the Court and valuable time of the Court might be saved. It was accordingly prayed that necessary directions might be issued to include the actual period of parole towards the period of actual sentence undergone by the convicts. The said petition was dated 1.6.2000. Even in the other petition, bearing Criminal Misc. 28926-M of 2000, filed by Gulzar Singh, convict, a similar prayer was made and reliance was also placed on the copy of the order dated 15.5.1999, passed by Honble Mr. Justice Swatantar Kumar and it was prayed that the period of parole might be counted towards the period of actual sentence spent by the petitioner in jail. 4. In the written reply filed by the Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal, in the petition bearing Criminal Misc. Justice Swatantar Kumar and it was prayed that the period of parole might be counted towards the period of actual sentence spent by the petitioner in jail. 4. In the written reply filed by the Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal, in the petition bearing Criminal Misc. 22580-M of 2000, it was alleged that the convicts were released on parole under the provisions of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was alleged that the replying respondent was duty-bound to treat and act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It was alleged that the parole period could not be counted towards the actual sentence. It was further alleged that the State Govt. had framed a latest policy regarding pre-mature release of life convicts and even in the said Policy, it had been clearly mentioned that for the purposes of calculation of actual and total sentence, the period, during which a convict remained on parole, would not be counted. In the written reply filed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala, in Criminal Misc. 28926-M of 2000, it was alleged that as per Section 3(3) of the Act, and the latest instructions dated 8.8.2000, issued by the Haryana Govt., the period of parole, availed by the convicts, was not to be counted towards the actual sentence. It was accordingly prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. Since the petition bearing Criminal Misc. 22580-M of 2000 was received through jail and in the said petition, a law point was required to be determined as to whether the period of parole was to be counted towards the total sentence, undergone by the convict, it was considered appropriate to appoint a learned counsel as amicus curiae to assist this Court in that regard. Accordingly, Sh. Vijay K. Jindal, Advocate, was appointed as amicus curiae, with a direction that the office shall supply copies of the petition, etc. to the learned counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the parties in both the petitions and perused the record carefully. 6. It is not disputed before me that now the matter stands fully settled by a Constitutional Bench of the Honble Supreme Court, in the case reported as Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and Ors., 2000 Criminal Law Journal 1444. I have heard learned counsel for the parties in both the petitions and perused the record carefully. 6. It is not disputed before me that now the matter stands fully settled by a Constitutional Bench of the Honble Supreme Court, in the case reported as Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and Ors., 2000 Criminal Law Journal 1444. In the said case, after considering various aspects of the release on parole, it was held by their Lordships of Supreme Court that the period, during which a ddtenu has been out of custody, on temporary release on parole, unless otherwise prescribed by the order, granting parole, or by Rules and instructions, has to be included as a part of the total period of detention, because of the very nature of the parole. It was further held as under : "That parole does not interrupt the period of detention and thus, that period needs to be counted towards the total period of detention, unless the terms for grant of parole, rules or instructions prescribe otherwise." 7. In the State of Haryana, there exists the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1999. Section 3 of the said Act provides for the temporary release. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act reads as under : "The period of release under this Section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner." 8. Thus, from a perusal of the provisions of this Section, it would be clear that the State Govt. has specifically prescribed that the period of release on parole, shall not count towards the total period of sentence. Furthermore, the Haryan Govt. had framed a comprehensive Policy dated 8.8.2000, regarding premature release of the life convicts. It was mentioned in the said Policy that the Haryana Govt. had, from time to time, amended the Policy regarding the premature release of life convicts and that there was a need to incorporate all the amendments made from time to time in the Policy at one place. In the said Policy, framed by the Haryana Govt. it has been specifically mentioned as under : "For purpose of calculation of actual or total sentence ....... the period, during which a convict remains on parole, will not be counted." 9. Thus, even in the Policy, framed by the Haryana Govt. In the said Policy, framed by the Haryana Govt. it has been specifically mentioned as under : "For purpose of calculation of actual or total sentence ....... the period, during which a convict remains on parole, will not be counted." 9. Thus, even in the Policy, framed by the Haryana Govt. for premature release of the life convicts, it has been specifically mentioned that the period of parole would not be counted towards the actual sentence undergone by the convicts. 10. In view of the specific provisions made in the Act and the policy, framed by the Haryana Govt. referred to above, it would be clear that the period of parole is not to be counted towards the actual sentence, undergone by the convicts. Since there are provisions in the Act and the instructions in the form of the policy, in this regard, the petitioners cannot seek the period of parole to be included in the actual sentence undergone by them, keeping in view the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Honble Supreme Court, in Sunil Fulchand Shahs case (supra). In view of the above finding no merit in these petitions, both are hereby dismissed.