IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev. No.1002 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 10, 2010 TEK CHAND ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. VS Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 25.8.2008, whereby the appellate court has confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.2.2007, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad. The petitioner was tried for commission of offences under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, in FIR No.238 dated 19.6.1997, Police Station, Bhattu Kalan. The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 11.2.2002 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. While undergoing sentence, it seems that the petitioner applied Criminal Rev. No.1002 of 2009 2 for parole, which was allowed for 4 weeks, on 4.12.2005, vide order dated 15.7.2005, passed by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana. The petitioner was directed to present himself in jail on 2.1.2006. The petitioner did not appear till 26.1.2006. The petitioner was arrested on 28.1.2006. The petitioner was found to have committed offences under Sections 8 and 9 of the Haryana Good Conduct of Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). FIR bearing No.30 dated 23.1.2006 under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, under the circumstances, was lodged at Police Station, Bhattu Kalan. The petitioner was tried and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for commission of an offence under section 9 of the Act. Appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that it is a fact that the petitioner has remained in custody since 28.1.2006. Sentence of the petitioner in the case under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, has been suspended by this Court on 21.5.2008. The benefit of the said custody period needs to be given to the petitioner. It transpires that even till now, the petitioner is in custody, although sentence of the petitioner has been suspended in the main case under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. I have considered the issue. Considering the fact that the petitioner was taken in custody on 28.1.2008 and continues to be in custody, manifest injustice would be caused if it is not directed that the petitioner has already undergone the sentence. Criminal Rev. No.1002 of 2009 3 The revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of. While the judgment of conviction is upheld, the sentence in regard to commission of offence under Section 9 of the Act, would be considered as already undergone. February 10, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?