IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 21961 of 2011(O&M) DATE OF DECISION: December 22, 2011 Rounak Chand .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Amit Shivrain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Reply on behalf of the State has been filed. It is now disclosed that the production warrant of case RC No.11/91, under Section 120 read with Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC was received by them on 23.4.1992 before the JMIC, Patiala. State counsel, accordingly, contends that the effect of this period would have to be taken into consideration. State counsel further points out that earlier the State has counted the pre-trial custody of the petitioner from 1.7.1992. Now his custody may have to be counted w.e.f. 23.4.1992. Since the arrest of the petitioner shown in FIR, which was pending against him, in the State of Punjab, the period which he has spent may be in Karnal from 23.4.1992 to 11.8.1992, may have to be counted for as a pre-trial for the sentence which has been imposed Crl. Misc. No. M- 21961 of 2011(O&M) -2- on the petitioner in the present case. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the light of observation made above. The Superintendent Central Jail, Patiala, would take this into account and calculate the period of pre-trial custody of the petitioner in accordance with law. December 22, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE