Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 45 (PNJ)

Rachhapal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2001-01-10

S.S.NIJJAR

body2001
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 326/324 read with Section 34 IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran, on 27.11.1972. He was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 326/34 IPC and further rigorous imprisonment for two months in default of payment of fine. He was also sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 324 IPC and further rigorous imprisonment for one month in default of payment of fine. The petitioner was also convicted for the offences under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs. 25/and further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days in default of payment of fine. 2. On appeal, the sentence was reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- for the offences under Section 326/34 IPC and three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324/34 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. This order was passed on 24.1.1973. However, the petitioner was acquitted of offences under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. 3. In Criminal Revision No. 104 of 1973, this Court by order dated 16.1.1975, confirmed the orders passed by the Appellate Court. According to the petitioner, he was arrested in the month of January, 1971 and remained in judicial custody for near about 4 and half months. He was released on bail during the pendency of the trial. However, the petitioner was taken into custody on 27th November, 1972 and remained in jail for two months during the pendency of the appeal till 24th January, 1973. During the pendency of the Revision Petition, the petitioner also remained in Jail for two months. Thus, according to the petitioner, he had served actual sentence for about eight and half months. 4. It is significant to note that after dismissal of the revision petition on 16.1.1975, the petitioner was not asked to surrender. However, sometime in the year 1994, the petitioner was summoned by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar to verify as to whether he had already undergone total period of sentence. 4. It is significant to note that after dismissal of the revision petition on 16.1.1975, the petitioner was not asked to surrender. However, sometime in the year 1994, the petitioner was summoned by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar to verify as to whether he had already undergone total period of sentence. After the petitioner gave details of the period of imprisonment undergone, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate referred the matter to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar, vide his letter dated 5.9.1998. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar, vide his letter dated 9.9.1998 has stated that the petitioner was admitted in jail on 27.11.1972. He was released on bail on 9.2.1973. Thus, according to the jail records, the petitioner remained in jail only from 27.11.1972 to 9.2.1973. He has further stated that the record regarding under trial period has been condemned being very old. Therefore, a request has been made that the period undergone by the petitioner, be calculated as per record of the Court. Surprisingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 13.9.1999 has issued a warrant of arrest of the petitioner for undergoing the remaining sentence. This warrant has been issued without verifying as to whether the petitioner has already undergone the entire sentence. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 13.9.1999, Annexure P-4. 5. Reply to the petition has been filed by respondent No. 1. However a perusal of the same shows that it does not clarify the point in issue. The reply merely states that the matter pertains either to the Jail authorities or to the trial Court. 6. The only prayer made, in this petition is to the effect that order dated 13.9.1999, Annexure P4, directing the arrest of the petitioner be quashed. Having given my anxious thought to the entire matter, I am, however, of the opinion that the interest of justice demands that in this matter the relief should be suitably moulded. It has been 28 years since the petitioner was convicted. The offence is alleged to have been committed in December, 1970. At the time of the conviction, the petitioner was 26 years of age. The record of the jail authorities have been destroyed. The petitioner has been living peaceful life for the past 30 years. It has been 28 years since the petitioner was convicted. The offence is alleged to have been committed in December, 1970. At the time of the conviction, the petitioner was 26 years of age. The record of the jail authorities have been destroyed. The petitioner has been living peaceful life for the past 30 years. It would be wholly unjust to require the petitioner to undergo the rest of the sentence at this stage. By now, the petitioner is over 55 years of age. It would do more harm than good to send the petitioner to jail at this stage, as it would only re-open the old wounds. Consequently, although no prayer is made for quashing of further proceedings, yet in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I deem it fit and proper to order that the proceedings against the petitioner for sending him back to jail for serving the remaining sentence, are hereby quashed. No further action shall be taken against the petitioner for sending him to jail on the basis of the sentence which was imposed on him by the trial court as modified by the Appellate Court and upheld by this Court. 7. The petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.