MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, who is a life convict, is seeking direction to the respondents to take into consideration the entire remissions granted by the State of Haryana right from the day the petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Hissar and thereafter to send the case of petitioner for grant of pre-mature release to the appropriate authorities.

(2.) IN F.I.R. No. 221 dated 25.9.1974 under Sections 148, 302/149 and 302 IPC, petitioner was arrested on 25.9.1974. Petitioner was convicted on 1.7.1977 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge, Hissar. On appeal filed by him in this Court, he was allowed to be released on bail. His appeal was dismissed on 4.9.1979. Petitioner surrendered to the jail authorities to undergo the unexpired portion of sentence on 23.10.1979. While in jail, he preferred an appeal to the Apex Court and on his application the Apex Court allowed him bail on 16.12.1981. He remained on bail till 16.7.1993 when he surrendered to the jail authorities in pursuance of dismissal of his appeal by the Apex Court on 20.1.1993.

(3.) A reading of circular letters, Annexure P-4, P-5 and P-6 makes it abundantly clear that special remissions granted to the prisoners under these circulars are also applicable to the petitioner. Annexure P-4 provides that special remission is granted to a prisoner who happened to be confined in Haryana jail on 21.6.1977. Similarly, Annexure P-5 applies to prisoners who were confined in District Jail, Hissar on 22.1.1978 and Annexure P-6 applies to prisoners who were confined in District Jail, Hissar on 8.2.1978. Para 2 of the circulars provides that all those prisoners who were convicted before 21.6.1977, 22.1.1978 and 8.2.1978 but were subsequently released on bail, shall be entitled to remission only if they surrender in the jail for undergoing the unexpired portion of their sentence. Admittedly the petitioner after the dismissal of his appeal by this Court had surrendered to the jail authorities to undergo the unexpired portion of his sentence. Likewise, he was allowed bail by the Apex Court and when his appeal was dismissed by the Apex Court, he again surrendered to the jail authorities on 16.7.1993 to undergo the unexpired portion of his sentence. Therefore, as per these circulars, the petitioner is entitled to remissions. As regards the contention that petitioner is also entitled to remission as given in Annexure R-1, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to special remission as has been provided in circular, Annexure R-1. The circular which has been attached to the written statement applies to those prisoners who remained confined in jail on the relevant dates, as mentioned in the circular R-1. Concededly, petitioner was not confined in jail on the said relevant dates and therefore, he is not entitled to benefit of special remissions provided therein. The judgment in 1990 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 44, cited by counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case because in that case the Government's order no-where provided that benefit of remissions would apply to the prisoners who were actually in jail and not to others who were on bail. In the present case, as already noticed the Circular R-1, specifically provides that special remission would be granted to only those prisoners who happened to be confined in jail on relevant dates.