RAMPHAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the claim to remission towards prison sentence, derived in absentia while on bail, dependent on the voluntary surrender of a-bailed out prisoner, is the crucial question which has cropped up for consideration in this criminal Writ Petition.

(2.) The alleged detenu Rajinder Kumar was accused of an offence under section 16(r)(a)(i) of the Food Adulteration. Act. He was tried in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind and convicted and sentenced on 22.10.1981. On the same day, he was released on bail enabling him to file an appeal before the Court of Sessions. The appeal when filed, was dismissed on 2 1.12.1982. He was on that day taken into custody. He then filed Criminal Revision No. 55 of 1983 before this Court. On 18.1.1983, he was ordered by this Court to be released on bail to the, satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind. On the requisite bond being executed, he was actually released from jail on 21.1.1983 after having suffered, 32 days of sentence. The revision petition was dismissed by this Court on 14.2.1984, but sentence of imprisonment was reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment, The ministerial re-arrest order was issued from this Court on 22.3.1984 to the Sessions Judge, Jind and a copy of the judgment and formal order dated 14.2.1984 was also issued to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind for strict compliance requiring that Rajinder Kumar shall be forthwith arrested and-committed to jail to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence and that bail order dated 18.1.1983 issued by this Court stood vacated. The detenus was arrested on 12.3.1985 by the police under warrants of arrest issued for the purpose. It is plain from the data that the detenu- after the dismissal of his revision petition by this Court on 14.2.1984 remained at large for about 13 months and did not voluntarily surrender to undergo the remaining portion of, the sentence. On his re-arrest, this petition has been filed by one Ram Phal, without disclosing his interest in the detenu, claiming that the detenu had in the meantime earned two special remissions totaling 180 days (6 months) and thus the act of detention of the detenu dated 12.3.1985 and/or his continued detention thereafter was illegal and in violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Thus, a writ of the nature of habeas corpus or mandamus has been prayed for.

(3.) The Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana in his affidavit and additional affidavit refuted the claim of the detenu by placing on record material to contend that special remissions whenever granted ensure to the benefit of persons already eh bail only if they promptly surrender in jail for under going the unexpired portion of their sentence and not when the convict with State effort is rearrested for the purpose.