JIWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only controversy between the parties herein is as to whether the period of temporary release on parole is to be deducted from the actual sentence undergone or from the total sentence i.e. actual sentence plus remissions. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges on the strength of various decisions reported in Faqir Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.,1988(1) R.C.R. 558, Life Convict Karam Singh v. State of H.P., 1994 (2) R.C.R. 28, Ram char v. State of Haryana,1995(1) Recent Criminal Reports 686, Natha Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., 1995 (2) All India Law Reports 705; and Partap Singh v. State of Haryana, 1995(3) Recent Criminal Reports 466 that this Court has consistently held that the period of parole is to be deducted from the total sentence undergone and not from the actual sentences.

(2.) AS against this, Miss Aparna Mahajan learned Advocate appearing for the State of Haryana, has urged that in a single Bench decision of this Court reported as Amar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1984 (1) C.L.R. 54, it has been held to the contrary and it has been held that the parole period is to be deducted from the actual sentence and not from the total period of imprisonment.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and find that the petitioner's stand has merit. It is true that at one stage Hon'ble M.M. Punchhi, J., reported in Majinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. 1984 (2) C.L.R. 146 had held as has been contended by the learned State counsel but in the judgement cited by her today that is Amar Singh's case (supra) the same learned Judge himself distinguished the earlier case and has held in the manner contended by the petitioner's counsel. It is, therefore, apparent that the preponderance of view of this Court as also other courts seems to be in favour of the petitioners.