SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE .

(2.) MR . J.S. Ahlawat, counsel appearing for the State - respondents accepts notice.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The basic grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the respondents are not initiating the case of the petitioner for grant of pre -mature release on the ground that the petitioner has not completed the minimum prescribed period for this purpose under the instructions issued by the concerned Government. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has completed the minimum prescribed period. The submission is that the respondents have erred in not counting the period spent by the petitioner whitest on parole as and when granted by the Government or the Courts. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is supported by various judgments of this Court. Shri V.S. Aggarwal, J. in Criminal Misc. No. 6175 -M of 1995, decided on 26.5.1995 had taken the view in case Natha Singh v. State of Haryana and others that the period spent by the prisoner on parole is not to be excluded from the period of actual sentence undergone by the prisoner. This view was followed by this Court in the case of Hem Chander v. State of Haryana and another. Criminal Misc. No. 17513 -M of 1995 decided on 29.11.1995. A similar view was expressed in the case of Faqir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988 (1) R.C.R. 558 : [1988(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 2 (Pb. and Hry.)) and Karam Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1994(2) R.C.R. 28, as well as in the case of Hazura Singh v. State of Haryana, Criminal Misc. No. 4258 - M of 1995, decided on 8.5.1995.