IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1366 of 2005 Date of decision:25.10.2010 Gurvinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Shailender Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana. **** A.N. JINDAL, J.(ORAL) The Trial Court vide judgement dated 4.9.2003 convicted the accused under Section 8/9 of the Haryana Good conduct Prisoners (Temporary release) Act, 1988 (for brevity the Act)and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year. However, vide the impugned judgement dated 12.12.2003 the Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal reduced the sentence to nine months. Factual matrix of the case is that the accused was undergoing the sentence for life imprisonment in murder case in Central Jail, Ambala, from where, he was released on parole for 4 weeks on 19.2.2002 by the order of the Director General Prisoner Haryana Manimajra. However, he was required to surrender at the jail gate by 20.3.2002. On expiry of his parole, and on failing to surrender before the jail gate on the date fixed, a case was registered against him under Sections 8 and 9 of the Crl. Revision No. 1366 of 2005 -2- Act. Thereafter, the accused was arrested on 17.4.2002. On completion of investigation the challan was presented against him. He was charged under the aforesaid prisoners, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. On trial, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed with some modification in the sentence. The case is based on document any evidence. The evidence reveals that the accused was released on parole on 19.02.2002 for the period upto 19.3.2002 and he was to surrender back on 20.3.2002 whereas he did not surrender, ultimately he was arrested on 17.4.2002. No such evidence has been placed on record that he was prevented by any sufficient cause for not complying the order of parole or that period beyond the period of parole. I was informed that the petitioner is already suffering imprisonment for life and has completed the sentence in this offence. Anyway, for the reasons stated above, no fault could be made with the impugned judgement. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. (A.N. JINDAL) 25.10.2010 JUDGE Poonam(II)