SHIV DEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shiv Dev Singh has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking directions of this Court that he is entitled to the various remissions granted by the State Government from time to time under Article 161 of the Constitution of India or under Section 432 Cr. P.C.

(2.) A few facts can be noticed in the following manner :

(3.) So far as the first stand of the State is concerned, I am not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Vikas Cuccria because in the said case, the Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were interpreting para 617 of the Jail Manual which does not talk of Special Remissions but those remissions which are granted to the prisoners under the Jail Manual. Here in the present case, we are talking of the special remissions which are announced by the State Government from time to time on special occasions such as 15th August and Republic day etc. The first contention of the State also cannot be accepted because the State is ready to give benefit of Special Remissions to the persons who are on parole or furlough. On those parameters, the benefit of Special Remissions cannot be deprived to the petitioner if those are announced from time to time. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the judgment which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent, Jai Parkash may not be applicable to the facts in hand. With regard to the second stand taken by the respondent, I see merit in it. Petitioner was granted bail under the orders of the High Court on 8.2.1986. His appeal was dismissed on 18.7.1990. In these situations, It was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to surrender himself before the Competent Authority in order to serve the remaining sentence or within a reasonable time from the date of dismissal of his appeal. The petitioner cannot be allowed benefit of Special Remissions from 18.7.90 upto the date of his actual arrest i.e. 20.5.1997. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive any notice from the C.J.M./Government intimating that his appeal has been dismissed by the High Court or Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to the Special Remissions even announced by the State Government, subsequent to the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court on 18.7.1990. Shri Jindal has relied upon the judgment of this Court Buta Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 3 RCR(Cri) 676. I have given serious thought to the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.