Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2210 (PNJ)

Harjinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-08-03

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2010
Judgment Ram Chand Gupta, J. 1. The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for issuance of appropriate direction to the respondents to release the petitioner by allowing benefit of special remission granted to other convicts, while on bail till before 11.9.2001 under the various orders issued by time to time, by the States of Punjab and Haryana under Article 161 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 432, 433-A Cr.P.C., in view of the decision dated 11.9.2001 of Honble Apex Court in Crl. Appeal No. 910-919 of 2001 titled s Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, as petitioner has already undergone substantial portion of sentence. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for offence under Section 409 IPC in FIR No. 91, dated 15.4.1991, registered under Sections 409, 467, 468, 201 IPC, at Police Station Sangrur, vide judgment dated 16.10.1999. He preferred appeal against the said judgment and order of sentence before the Court of Sessions, Sangrur, however, his appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 21.1.2003. Petitioner preferred revision petition before this Court against the judgment passed by Courts below and however, the criminal revision was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 6.1.2010. Petitioner remained on bail during pendency of trial, appeal and revision petition, however, he was taken into custody on 15.4.2010 to serve the sentence. 4. It is further contended that while petitioner was on bail, special remissions were granted by State of Punjab on. 12.4.2000 for three months and on 13.4.2001 for one year during pendency of revision petition before this Court to,the petitioner. Hence, if the said period is added to the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner, he completes the sentence awarded to him. It is further contended that even after decision of Joginder Singhs case (supra) by Honble Apex Court, he is entitled for remissions while on bail granted by State of Punjab before the date of judgment, i.e., 11.9.2001. Hence, if the said period is added to the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner, he completes the sentence awarded to him. It is further contended that even after decision of Joginder Singhs case (supra) by Honble Apex Court, he is entitled for remissions while on bail granted by State of Punjab before the date of judgment, i.e., 11.9.2001. He has also placed reliance upon Nalamolu Appala swamy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1989 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 192. 5. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned State counsel that petitioner has undergone only six months and twenty eight days of the sentence and in view of decision rendered by Honble Apex Court in Joginder Singhs case (supra), he is not entitled for any remission granted by State Governments while he was on bail. It is further contended that law has been settled by Honble Apex Court in Joginder Singhs case (supra) and hence, it cannot be said that law settled in that case is prospective and that petitioner is entitled for remissions granted by State Governments before 11.9.2001. It is further contended that moreover petitioner has undergone only few days of sentence when the orders Annexures R1 and R2 were issued granting remissions and hence, he cannot derive the benefit of bail as well as of remission orders. 6. Judgments passed by Honble Apex Court in Nalamolu Appala Swamy and otherss case (supra) as well as Joginder Singhs case (supra) were considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 983 and after considering all the aspects of the matter, it was held as under :- "28. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the judgment in Joginder Singhs case (supra) is prospective cannot be accepted because firstly there is no observation in that case to give effect to the operation of the judgment only prospectively. Secondly, it is declaration of law which is binding on everyone under Article 142 of the Constitution. Therefore, we have no hesitation to reject the argument raised." 7. Secondly, it is declaration of law which is binding on everyone under Article 142 of the Constitution. Therefore, we have no hesitation to reject the argument raised." 7. Hence, in view of this legal proposition, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that judgment rendered by Honble Apex Court in Joginder Singhs case (supra) is prospective in nature and that petitioner is entitled for remissions granted before 11.9.2001 to other convicts by State of Punjab, though he was on bail had undergone only few days of sentence out of one year on the date of passing of those orders. 8. The relevant paragraph of the judgment rendered by Honble Apex Court in Joginder Singhs case (supra) reads as under :- "9. With respect, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the said respondents. In other words, acceptance of this argument, in our opinion, would reduce the criminal justice system to mockery as has been said by this Court in Nauratta Singhs case (supra). In the cases cited by the appellant, this Court has categorically held that there is substantial difference between the words "parole" and "furlough" on one hand and the expression "bail" on the other. These judgments have also held that persons who are enlarged on bail cannot claim the benefit of the period during which they were on bail for the purpose of counting the period of sentence already undergone to apply the remission given by the Government. In view of this clear enunciation of law, in our opinion, even by the inclusion of the word "bail in the notification of the Punjab Government an accused who has always remained on bail or has not served the substantial part of his sentence cannot take advantage of the remission notification." Hence, there is no merit in the present petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed.