NAURATTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Petitioner Nauratta Singh alongwith others faced charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code before the Sessions Judge, Ambala, but was acquitted of that charge, and instead convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 5.1.1978. He was awarded rigorous imprisonment for nine months and 26 days which he had already undergone. As against this State of Haryana filed Cr. Appeal No. 429 of 1978 while another accused filed Cr. A. No. 106 of 1978 before the High Court. Both these appeals were decided on 23.4.1980 by and under which petitioner Nauratta Singh was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 324 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment. According to the petitioner, he surrendered on 7.6.1980 but was granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 2.8.1980. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 27.7.1994 and the petitioner was re-admitted into jail on 22.8.1994. These facts are admitted by the respondent. The petitioner has approached this Court now under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the date of conviction of the petitioner for all intents and purposes be taken as 5.1.1978, and thereby to extend to him all the consequential benefits. The petitioner also claims that the provisions of Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not applicable to his case since his conviction was recorded prior to 18.12.1978 when the said section came into force. The petitioner, therefore, claims that he is entitled to all the remission granted by the State of Haryana ever since 5.1.1978.

(2.) REPLY was filed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala, on behalf of the respondents including the State of Haryana. As pointed out already, there is no dispute with regard to the facts as alleged by the petitioner but the respondents urge that the petitioner was a free citizen from 5.1.1978 to 7.6.1980 and also remained on bail from 2.8.1980 to 21.8.1994, and that no remission is permissible under paragraph 637 of the Punjab Jail Manual (as applicable to Haryana) for the period during which the petitioner remained on bail or his sentence was otherwise under suspension. The respondents also allege that the petitioner was convicted under Section 324 IPC on 5.1.1978 but was released on the same day after setting off the period during which he remained as a prisoner, that be remained a free person till 23.4.1980 when he was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court. Therefore, the petition is hit by the provisions of Section 433-A which are applicable to the case of the petitioner. According to the respondents remissions are given to the person who happened to be confined to the jail on the dates of the circulars and, therefore, the stand taken by the petitioner is not correct.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for both the sides. I will first take up the question whether the petitioner is entitled to any remission for the period during which he was on bail ? The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court by its judgment dated 23.4.1980 for all intents and purposes, the petitioner should be deemed to have been convicted on 5.1.1978 when he was acquitted by the trial Court on the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but was convicted and sentenced under Section 324-IPC for the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. Of course the petitioner, after the judgment of this Court, surrendered on 7.6.1980 and was bailed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 2.8.1980. But the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of this Court in Crl. Misc. 21119-M of 1995 decided on 18.9.1996 in support of his contention that a person, who was on bail under the orders of the Competent Court was for all intents and purposes, a prisoner and as such the benefits of the instructions granting remission could not be denied to the petitioner on the ground that he was actually not in Jail. In this decision relied upon by the petitioner, the petitioner before the High Court was sentenced to life imprisonment on 19.2.1977. On 19.8.1980 the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail by the Supreme Court and the appeal was thereafter dismissed. On 24th December, 1991, the petitioner surrendered to custody. The petitioner therein claimed certain benefits under the instructions dated 21.8.1986 but his request was rejected on the ground that he was on bail on 20.8.1986 and, therefore, the benefit of the instructions abovesaid could not be given to him. But this Court rejecting this contention of the State and relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nalamolu Appala Swamy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1990 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 44 held that the interpretation of the State on the circular was not correct.