(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).R.K. Jain, R.P. Singh and Rakesh Khanna for the petitioners.S.C. Mahanto, C.V.S. Rao and Mahabir Singh for theRespondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.C. RAY, J. The petitioners who are life convicts inthis writ petition have assailed a D.O. Letter No.4665/1983-GI/G4/R.10-84 dated 24.4.1985 issued by the re-spondent No. 3, Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana,Chandigarh intimating to the Superintendent of Jail thatconvicts who are on bail and whose sentences are suspended,are excluded from the remissions systems in view of theprovisions of Section 637 of the Punjab Jail Manual on theground that the aforesaid letter purports to deprive thepetitioners from the benefit of remissions of 19 months and12 days granted to them during the period they were on bail,while counting the total period of sentence including remis-sions undergone by them in order to consider their cases ofpre-mature release from imprisonment.The petitioner No. 1, Jai Prakash was convicted by theDistrict and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, on December 4, 1975under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was award-ed life imprisonment.Against this judgment and order of theSessions Judge he preferred an appeal before the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana and he was granted bail on 12.1.1976.This appeal, however, was dismissed on 28.9.1978 and he wasarrested on 29.1.1979 while he was going to the Court tosurrender himself to serve out the remaining part of thesentence as stated by him.The petitioner has stated thatduring the period he was on bail he earned remission of 19months and 12 days.Similarly, the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were also convict-ed by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, on 23.3.1976 in a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Codeand they were awarded life imprisonment.1979 for serving out theirremaining part of sentence.The petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 werealso given remissions of 19 months and 12 days during theperiod they remained on bail.It has been stated that though all the petitioners weregiven remissions of 19 months and 12 days and they wereunder the impression that the period of remission earned bythem would be taken into consideration under para 637 ofPunjab Jail Manual while computing their sentence under Para516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual.They have now been informedby the respondent No. 3 as per his letter dated 24.4.1985addressed to the Superintendent, District Jail, Bhiwani,respondent No. 2, that the convicts who were on bail andwhose sentences were suspended would be excluded from theremissions purported to be earned by them while they were onbail.The petitioners have submitted that a number of pris-oners to whom remissions were given during the period whenthey were on bail were also released by the State Governmentafter taking into consideration the remissions granted tothem during the period when they were on bail or that theirsentence had been suspended.Names of six persons werementioned in the petition who were pre-maturely released.The petitioners have also stated that since they surrenderedthemselves before the jail authority after dismissal oftheir appeals by the High Court they are entitled to havethe period of remissions earned by them to be counted whileconsidering the total period of sentence undergone for theirpremature release.A counter-affidavit affirmed by the Superintendent ofDistrict Jail, Bhiwani has been filed.The petitioners are not entitled to thebenefit claimed as they had not surrendered in the jail forundergoing the remaining period of the sentence.The appealof petitioner No. 1 had been dismissed on 28.9.1978 but hedid not surrender for several months.According to the petitioners' own averments in para 2of the petition, the other four writ petitioners remainedout of jail for more than two months after the dismissal oftheir appeal.It is evident that they had not surrendered inthe jail for undergoing the remaining period of sentenceimmediately after dismissal of their appeals.It has also been stated that similar cases of remissionearned during the period of bail came up before the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana and it was held by the HighCourt that special remissions were not available to theconvicts who had not surrendered voluntarily on the expiryof the bail period.It has been stated further that non-surrender of the convict for1112several months after dismissal of appeal by itself showedthat the surrender was not voluntary and such a convict didnot merit the remission and an interpretation different fromthat would defeat the administration of justice.It has beenaverred that petitioners could not avail of the remissionsordered erroneously and inadvertently not in accordance withthe relevant rules.As regards the six specific cases men-tioned, it has been stated that the benefit was given toTuhi Ram and Dig Ram only but not in the cases of the otherfour convicts referred to in the petition.They were deniedthe benefit as it is being done to the petitioners."MANUAL FOR THE SUPERINTENDENCE AND MANAGEMENT OF JAILS IN THE PUNJABThe submission thatthe petitioners who were temporarily released on bail areentitled to get the remission earned during the period theywere under bail, is not at all sustainable.As such theremissions that were inadvertently given to these petition-ers cannot be taken into account in considering the total 1113period of sentence undergone by them while considering theirpremature release from imprisonment under paragraph 637 ofthe Punjab Jail Manual.It also appears from the order ofthe Governor of Haryana dated 14th August, 1977 annexed asAnnexure 'R1' to the writ petition that the special remis-sion was granted by the Governor of Haryana to only thoseprisoners who were in confinement on 14th August, 1977 onthe occasion of the first visit of the Chief Minister ofHaryana to jail and who had been subsequently released onbail.It is pertinent to set out paragraph 2 of the saidorder:-"All those prisoners who have been convicted before the 14th August, 1977 but subsequently released on bail shall be enti- tled to the remission only if they surrender in the jail for undergoing the unexpired portion of their sentence."The petitioners though convicted prior to 14th August,1977 that is the date of visit of the Hon'ble Minister tothe Jail were granted bail before the said date.Secondly, all thesepetitioners did not surrender in the jail for undergoing theunexpired portion of their sentences immediately after theirappeals were dismissed by the High Court.1979 in pursuance of the warrantissued by the court.1979 to serve outthe remaining part of their sentence.1977referred to hereinbefore.1985 to allSuperintendents of Jails including the Superintendent ofDistrict Jail, Bhiwani, drawing their attention to paragraph2 of the letter dated 11/14-1-1985 from the State Governmentto the Jail Department which is to the following effect:-"Attention of all Superintendents of Jails is drawn to para 4 of the Government letter under which Government have affirmed that convicts who are on bail and whose sentences have been suspended are excluded from the remissions systems in.This D.O. letter has been annexed as Annexure 'A' to the writ petition.The letter dated 11/14 January, 1985 issued by the Gover- nor of Haryana to the respondent No. 3 is an- nexed as Annexure 'R5' to the writ petition.The relevant excerpt of it is set out herein below:-It is clear and evident from this letter that convictswho were on parole from jail on the date and time of thevisit of the Chief Minister to the Jail will be grantedremissions on condition that they surrender at the jail onthe due date after expiry of parole period for undergoingthe unexpired period of their sentence.This means that aconvict in order to get the benefit of remission as directedby the said order issued under Article 16 1 of the Constitu-tion of India has to surrender voluntarily at the Jail afterexpiry of bail.In the instant case, petitioner No. 1 didnot surrender in jail or before the Magistrate after hisappeal was dismissed by the High Court and the petitionerNo. 1 had been 1115arrested under warrant of arrest as he did not surrender injail after his appeal was dismissed.Petitioners who were onbail also did not surrender immediately after dismissal oftheir appeal but they surrendered themselves after twomonths of dismissal of their appeal.The letter of the respondent No. 3 theInspector General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh i.e.D.O.Letter No. 4665/1983-GI/G4/R10-84 dated 24.4.1985 is quitein accordance with the Government order made on 11/14 Janu-ary, 1985 and the respondent No. 3 in fact quoted paragraph2 of the said letter which contains the necessary requisitefor grant of remissions from sentence.The said D.O. letterof the respondent No. 3 cannot therefore be challenged as inviolation of paragraph 637 of the Punjab Jail Manual nor itis contrary to the directions contained in the aforesaidorder.In the premises aforesaid, this writ petition is dis-missed.There will be no order as to costs.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code