SMT VEENA BEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal parole writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the wife of Convict Mehula Kumar Panchal claiming the following relief:-

(2.) Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioner's husband was convicted for the offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act, and has been sentenced to undergo 12 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine stipulated. The petitioner's husband (convict/prisoner) has filed an appeal against his conviction, which is pending before this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner's husband has already undergone the sentence for more than three years.

(3.) The factum of three years of imprisonment is refuted in the reply filed by the prosecution, and thus, the basic information given in the petition by the petitioner is wrong, as the learned Public Prosecutor in his reply has provided the detail which indicates that the petitioner's husband while under trial remained in custody for 7 months and 14 days. In the reply of the prosecution, it has been stated that after award of the sentence, the petitioner's husband served 11 months and 27 days of imprisonment, and therefore, in totality, the petitioner's husband has undergone only 1 year, 7 months and 11 days of imprisonment. Since the petitioner has come with clean hands before this Court, therefore, he does deserve any consideration for grant of parole. However, even if seen on the merits of the case then also the provision governing the Central Law of NDPS Act is the Gazette Notification issued by Ministry of Home Affairs on 09.11.1955, which reads as follows:- Ministry of Home AffairsNew Delhi-2, the 9th November, 1955