Crl. Misc. No. M-28503 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-28503 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 19, 2011 Sultan .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Varinder Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Sultan has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing order dated 03.08.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. The petitioner was released on parole for four weeks on 22.06.2011. He was to surrender in the jail on 21.07.2011. However, he surrendered on 23.07.2011 i.e. after over-stay of two days. For the aforesaid over-stay, Superintendent, District Jail, Bhiwani, vide order dated 26.07.2011, imposed jail punishment on the petitioner for incarceration of four days remission i.e. forfeiture of four days Crl. Misc. No. M-28503 of 2011 2 remission. On judicial appraisal, as required by law, District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide impugned order dated 03.08.2011, modified the order of Jail Superintendent and reduced the incarceration period of remission from four days to two days. Feeling still aggrieved, petitioner has filed the instant petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that conduct of the petitioner has been good because he himself surrendered in the jail after over-stay of two days. However, this contention cannot be accepted to completely exonerate the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner over-stayed on parole for two days. Jail Superintendent imposed jail punishment for the same. District and Sessions Judge, on judicial appraisal of the jail punishment, has reduced the same as noticed herein before. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 03.08.2011 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. September 19, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE