JAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Jai Singh, who is serving sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC pursuant to an order passed by the Apex Court on 23.7.1999, asserts that he has already undergone the following sentence :

(2.) IN the reply filed by Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala, the stand taken by the State was sought to be justified on the basis of Govt. Instructions issued on 14.8.1995, 14.8.1996 and 31.10.1996 according to which prisoners convicted under Section 376 IPC are not entitled to the benefit of the remissions. Regarding the second submission, the decision of this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 9025-M of 1997 decided on 9.11.1999 was sought to be relied upon for justifying the refusal to count the parole period towards the period of sentence already undergone. Factual matrix of the assertions about the period spent by the petitioner in jail was not controverted and it was submitted that view taken by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 21747-M of 1998, Suresh Kumar v. The State of Haryana, decided on 6.7.1999, has been challenged in the apex Court and so the submission that the petitioner could not be denied the benefit of the remissions merely on account of the fact that he was serving sentence in a heinous offence could not be accepted. During the course of arguments, the only challenge sought to be made is with regard to the refusal of the State to count remissions that have accrued to the petitioner on account of the fact that he is serving sentence under Section 376 IPC.

(3.) IN the present case the petitioner is challenging the refusal of the respondents to extend the benefit of remissions granted to the prisoners on the ground that he had committed heinous offence of rape as also the fact that the period spent by him on parole was not being counted towards the sentence served by him. Mr. P.C. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments did not seriously press the second submission made by him presumably in view of the fact taht the provisions of Section 9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 debar the counting of the period spent by a prisoner on parole towards the period of sentence but he assailed the refusal of the respondents to give the petitioner the benefit of remissions that have been granted to other prisoners on the basis of the view taken by this Court in Crl.Misc. No. 21746-M of 1998. The applicability of this judgment was initially contented (contested ?) on the ground taht the State had filed an appeal before the Apex Court but when the orders passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1487 of 2000 was produced, the challenge was no longer available to the State for the challenge to the extension of special remissions to cases of dowry death, which was disallowed by the State Government on the basis of some notifications which are being relied upon in this case was not pressed and therefore, the view of this Court still holds the field. The result is that it was not open to the State while granting general remissions to carve out special exceptions in cases, which according to it could be termed as heinous offences.