ORDER : Shri Narendra Nikhare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ramesh Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate for the State. 2. With the consent of both the parties this case is heard finally. 3. Petitioner's case is that he was convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment in Sessions Trial No. 19/92 by Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur vide judgment dated 7-12-1992, during the trial he was in custody from 24-10-1991. Petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal No. 90/93 against the conviction. Petitioner after completion of more than 9 years in jail, filed an application for releasing him on probation under the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954. The State Government after considering his application of the petitioner released him from jail on 26-2-2001 on licence. When petitioner was on licence his Criminal Appeal No. 90/93 was dismissed on 9-2-2007 and arrest warrant is issued against him by C.J.M., Chhatarpur. 4. The short point involved in this case that once petitioner is released on licence can he be sent back to jail regarding same case (offence), after dismissal of his criminal appeal because he was released on licence under the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954? It will be profitable to reproduce section 2 of this Act :- "2. Power of Government to release by licence on conditions imposed by it.- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 where a person is confined in a prison under a sentence of imprisonment, and it appears to the Government from his antecedents and his conduct in the prison that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a Peaceable life, if he is released from prison, the Government; may by licence permit him to be released on condition that he be placed under the supervision or authority of a Government Officer or of a person professing the same religion as the prisoner or such institution or society as may be recognized by the Government for the purpose, provided such other person, institution or society is willing to take charge of him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W. P. No. 6369/2005, Hari Singh vs. State of M. P. and another decided on 5-12-2005, in which the Court considering the similar question held as under :- "7. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W. P. No. 6369/2005, Hari Singh vs. State of M. P. and another decided on 5-12-2005, in which the Court considering the similar question held as under :- "7. To appreciate the submissions raised at the Bar, it is appropriate to refer certain provisions of the 1954 Act, section 2 deals of power of the Government to release by licence on conditions imposed by in section 3 deals with the period for which licence is to be in force. The said provision reads as under :- "3. Period for which licence is to be in force :- A licence granted under the provisions of section 2 shall be in force until the date on which the person released would in the execution of the order of warrant authorizing his imprisonment have been discharged from prison had he not been released on licence, or until the licence is revoked, whichever is earlier. 8. Section 4 prescribes the period of release to be reckoned as imprisonment for computing period of sentence served. The said provisions is as under :- "4. Period of release to be reckoned as imprisonment for computing period of sentence served :- The period during which a person is absent from prison under the provisions of this Act on a licence which is force shall be reckoned as part of the period of imprisonment to which he was sentenced, for the purpose of computing the period of his sentence and for the purpose of computing the amount of remission of sentence which might be awarded to him under any rules in force relating to such remissions. 9. A set of Rules has been framed under the 1954 Act, namely, the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1965 thereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. Rule 5 of the Rules deals with computation of sentence'. It reads as under :- "5. Computation of sentence - For the purposes of these Rules the following principles shall be observed in computing the period of sentence of imprisonment namely : (a) When a prisoner has been sentenced to several terms of imprisonment for several offences and the sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently the longest single sentence which the prisoner is undergoing shall be deemed to be the term of his imprisonment. (b) When a prisoner has been sentenced to several terms of imprisonment for several offences and the sentence of imprisonment are being ordered to run concurrently the total period which the prisoner has to undergo shall be deemed to be the terms of his imprisonment. (c) Remission already earned by the prisoner shall be counted as imprisonment served by him and (d) Sentence of transportation for life or of imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as twenty years. Explanation - The expression "sentence of imprisonment" in these Rules shall include imprisonment in default of the payment of fine and imprisonment for failure to furnish security under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. (10) If the provisions of the 1954 Act and the Rules are conjointly read it would clear as crystal that the period on which a convict is released on licence, it would be counted towards the custodial sentence. As has been stated earlier, both the convicts, namely, Dashrath and Mathura Prasad were taken into Custody on 5-4-1993 and they were released on probation by grant of licence in the year 1999. If the period of actual as deemed custody and the period of sentence are considered, there can be no scintilla of doubt that they have served out the sentence. 11. At this juncture it is useful to refer to the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Ramesh Bhagwan Kure vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 1992 MPLJ 271 wherein in (paragraphs 4, 5 it has been held as under : "4. It may be pointed out here that a Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Faizan Uddin, J) was a member, in Misc. Petition No. 3155/88, Babu Pahalwan vs. The State of M. P. decided on 21-10-1989, has held that a prisoner under the M. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 and the rules made thereunder, is not set at liberty with absolute freedom but he is released on licence subject to various conditions on breach of which his licence may be revoked and he may be remanded back to custody and committed to prison to serve out his remaining sentence. It has been held that in a sense the prisoner so released on licence remains under the deemed custody. It has been held that in a sense the prisoner so released on licence remains under the deemed custody. Therefore, the provisions of section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be attracted to such a premature release on licence. 5. In view of these facts and circumstances the respondents were not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application merely on the ground that he has not served out 14 years of actual imprisonment. The petitioner's case falls within the zone of consideration in view of the rules and, therefore, his application must be decided on merits." 12. In view of the aforesaid, the convicts Dashrath and Mathura Prasad, are to be released from custody forthwith. 13. Ordinarily so saying I would have parted with the case but Mr. Ishtiyaq Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Mathura Prasad and Dashrath should be granted compensation as they have been illegally detained by the respondent. Be it noted, liberty is paramount for maintaining human dignity. Liberty is an insegregable part of dignified existence. But in the case at hand, in my considered opinion grant of compensation is not warranted. However, I would like to state that in a case of this nature counsel for the State must intimate the Court whether the convicts have been released under the 1954 Act and the Rules framed therein and if it is not possible and in the ultimate eventuate, non bailable warrants of arrest issued against them, they should intimate the Court by filing a memorandum indicating that the convicts have already served out the sentence. Appropriate measure in this regard should be taken by the Home Department, Govt. of M. P. and its functionaries as well as by the Director General of Police. It should also be kept in mind by the Director General of Police and the other authorities who are aware about the convicts being released on licence. 15. Quite apart from the above, the jail authorities also would apprise the Court concerned as well as the counsel for the State. 16. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Department of Homes, Government of M. P., or circulation of the same amongst the authorities mentioned above, so that such an unwarranted situation does not crop up. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to Secretary concerned forthwith. 17. 16. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Department of Homes, Government of M. P., or circulation of the same amongst the authorities mentioned above, so that such an unwarranted situation does not crop up. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to Secretary concerned forthwith. 17. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs." 6. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate Shri Ramesh Shukla has fairly conceded that in view of section 2 Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954. Petitioner once released on licence cannot be sent back to jail in the same Sessions/Regular case on dismissal of his criminal appeal. 7. As the facts of this case is identical to the facts of Hari Singh's case (supra), this petition is allowed and warrant issued by C.J.M. Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No. 19/92 (Criminal Appeal No. 90/93) Chhanua s/o Duriya Ahirwar, village Urd Mau, P. S. Maharajpur vs. State of M. P. is quashed.