Crl.W.P. No.1524 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P. No.1524 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 19, 2010 Vinod Kumar .....PETITIONER Versus The State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL --- Present: Mr.A.S. Trikha, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Petitioner Vinod Kumar, who is undergoing life sentence in District Jail, Sirsa, has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 12.6.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Sirsa, whereby he has been declined furlough of three weeks on the ground that being an habitual offender he is not entitled to be released on furlough. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order. In the impugned order, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has been convicted in three different cases for committing the offences- (i) under Section 304 Part II IPC; (ii) under Sections 302/307/148/149 IPC; Crl.W.P. No.1524 of 2010 -2- and (iii) under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and he is undergoing sentence in all the three cases. It has been further mentioned that the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa in his report has not recommended for release of the petitioner on furlough on the ground that he is a habitual offender. By taking into consideration these facts, the petitioner was declined the benefit of furlough in view of Section 4(1)(a) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). We do not find any illegality in the said order. Section 4 of the Act provides for release of prisoners on furlough. According to said Section, any prisoner who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than four years and who (a) has, immediately before the date of his temporary release, undergone continuous imprisonment for a period of three years, inclusive of the pre-sentence detention, if any; (b) has not during such period committed any jail offence and (c) has earned at least three annual good conduct remissions, can be released temporarily on furlough, provided that he is not a habitual offender as defined under sub-section (3) of Section 2 of Punjab Habitual Offenders (Control and Reform) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as `the Habitual Offenders Act') or has not been convicted of dacoity or such other offence as the State Government may, by notification, specify. Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Habitual Offenders Act defines “Habitual Offender” means a person- (a) who, during any continuous period of five years, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment more than twice on account of any one or more of the offences mentioned in the Schedule to this Act committed on different occasions and not constituting parts of the same transaction; and Crl.W.P. No.1524 of 2010 -3- (b) who has, as a result of such convictions suffered imprisonments at least for a total period of twelve months. A bare perusal of the Schedule to the Habitual Offenders Act reveals that the offences under Section 304 and 302 fall under it. Undisputedly, in the present case, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced thrice for committing the offence under Sections 304 Part II IPC, 302/307/148/149 IPC and 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Therefore, the case of the petitioner falls under the definition of “Habitual Offender”. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that all the three afore-said offences were committed by the petitioner within a period of three months, therefore, his case does not fall under the definition of “Habitual Offender” because the duration was much less than five years. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. Sub-section (3) (a) of Section 2 of the Habitual Offenders Act clearly lays down that a person must be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment more than twice during any continuous period of five years on account of any or more of the offences mentioned in the Schedule. Merely because the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced in three different cases for the offences under Sections 304 Part II IPC, 302/307/148/149 IPC and 302 read with Section 34 IPC, within a period of three months, it cannot be said that the said period does not fall within the continuous period of five years, as mentioned in sub-section (3) (a) of Section 2 of the Habitual Offenders Act. In our opinion, if the petitioner had committed the aforesaid three offences during any continuous period of more than five years, then his case would not have fallen under the definition of “Habitual Offender”. This is not the position in the present case. Crl.W.P. No.1524 of 2010 -4- In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 19, 2010 ( MOHINDER PAL ) vkg JUDGE