DEEPAK SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted under section 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act on 29.4.1983 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore, Calcutta (West Bengal) and awarded sentence of 10 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine he was further sentenced to two years R.I He had undergone 7 years 2 months and 22 days actual imprisonment including the undertrial period of custody and had earned remission of two years four months and four days. He had thus undergone a total sentence of 9 years 6 months and 26 days. Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment in Central Jail Ambala, to which he was transferred under the Transfer or Prisoners Act, 1950. According to the remission system in vogue in the State of Haryana, the State Government granted permission for six months by order dated 25.1.1988 and one year by order dated 6.7.1987 to all the prisoners. The aforesaid credit of 1-1/2 years remission had not been given to the petitioner. If that period is also counted, the petitioner had undergone the requisite sentence imposed by the Court and he was entitled to be free. The plea in the written statement is that under Para 645 of the Punjab Jail Manual the total remission cannot exceed 1/4th of the sentence in the case of a prisoner. The paragraph contained a proviso to the effect that in exceptional and suitable cases the Inspector General of Prisons may grant remission amounting to not more than one third of the total sentence. The case set up in the written statement is that the petitioner's case for the aforesaid, relaxation under the proviso to para 645 of the Punjab Jail Manual was not submitted to the Inspector General of Prisons as the petitioner had committed three jail offences on 8.7.1986, 3.12.1987 and 7.3,1988. The third alleged offence related to having been found in possession of some intoxicating, tablets alleged to have been passed on to him by his wife during an interview. A case under section 21 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had since been discharged in that case. The second jail offence related to infliction, of some injuries by the petitioner on his own person in order to obtain some extra quota of milk regarding which he had made a request to the doctor of the jail. The petitioner was produced before the superintendent of Jail.. He expressed regret for the incident and the Jail Superintendent must have been satisfied with the clean breast made by the petitioner and that is why he imposed no punishment on the petitioner. The first jail offence referred to above related to bringing of five meters of plain cloth and a transistor which were prohibited items in the jail. The Superintendent of Jail awarded a punishment of solitary confinement under Para 575 of the Punjab Jail Manual. A perusal of the details of the three jail offences mentioned above would show that except the first offence the remaining offences were either not substantiated or were considered to be too trivial to be visited with any punishment. With regard to the first offence also, the petitioner had suffered the punishment imposed on him. Failure to submit his case for relaxation to the Inspector General of Prisons will amount to visiting him with the second punishment on the same count which cannot be countenanced. It follows that it was the duty of the Jail Superintendent to have submitted the case of the petitioner for relaxation under the proviso to para 645 of the Punjab Jail Manual. It may be mentioned at this stage that the categorical averments made in paragraph 4 with regard to remission granted by the government on 6-7-198, and 25-1-1988 totalling one year six months were not controverted in the return filed by the stage. They must be assumed to be true. If the case had been sent to the Inspector General of Prisons under the proviso to the above noted paragraph, there is no reason why he would not have granted the relaxation. Viewed from this angle, the petitioner has completed his sentence.

(2.) THE only difficulty which remains is that the petitioner had been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine he has been sentenced to two years R.I. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to state whether the petitioner has deposited the fine. After careful consideration and for the reasons discussed above, the petition is allowed in the following terms : if the petitioner has paid the fine imposed on him, he shall be set free at once. If he has not paid the fine, then he shall be set free on payment of fine or in the alternative when he has undergone the requisite sentence imposed in default of payment of fine. This would include the remission which the petitioner had already earned or might earn in future subject to the limit fixed in Para 645 read with its proviso of the Punjab Jail Manual.