Crl. Misc. No. M-25242 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-25242 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 26, 2011 Sukhmander Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. B. P. K. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Sukhmander Singh – a convict for offence of dowry death has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) seeking benefit of remissions granted till before 11.09.2001 while the petitioner was on bail during the pendency of his criminal appeal. Learned trial court sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years besides fine, but in appeal, the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for eight years, while maintaining the Crl. Misc. No. M-25242 of 2011 2 sentence of fine. The petitioner's case is that since 11.09.2001 onwards, the benefit of remissions granted while the convict is on bail during pendency of appeal, is not admissible to the convicts, but till before 11.09.2001, the petitioner is entitled to benefit of remissions, which were granted, while he was on bail during pendency of appeal. Reply on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3, filed today in Court by learned State counsel, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Copy given to the opposite counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of various judgments of this Court (Annexures P-1 to P-4), the petitioner is entitled to benefit of remissions claimed by him. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that the petitioner, who is convict of dowry death, is not entitled to the benefit of remissions. Reference in this regard was made to remission order dated 16.12.1996 (Annexure R-1), which specifically excluded the benefit of remissions to convict of offence of dowry death. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide decision dated 11.09.2001 in Crl. Appeal Nos. 910-919 of 2001 titled as Joginder Crl. Misc. No. M-25242 of 2011 3 Singh vs. State of Punjab and others that convict, while on bail, is entitled to benefit of remissions granted by State of Punjab till before 11.09.2001 and not since 11.09.2001 onwards. Consequently, the petitioner is also entitled to benefit of remissions granted by State of Punjab till before 11.09.2001, while he was on bail during pendency of his criminal appeal, subject to the condition that the orders of remissions do not exclude the applicability of the said orders to the case of the petitioner or to the offence, for which he has been convicted. In this regard, reference may also be made to the remission order dated 16.12.1996 (Annexure R-1), which specifically excludes its applicability to convicts of dowry death under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC). Benefit of order Annexure R-1 and other similar orders would not be available to the petitioner, but if the said offence is not excluded specifically from the orders of remissions, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit thereof. In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is partly allowed. It is directed that the petitioner would be granted benefit of orders of remission passed by State of Punjab till before 11.09.2001, while the petitioner was on bail during pendency of his appeal, subject to the condition that the orders of remissions do not exclude the applicability thereof to the case of the petitioner. September 26, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE