Criminal Writ Petition No. 1738 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1738 of 2010 Date of Decision: 24.1.2011 Aroar Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. A.S. Trikha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the petitioner be released forthwith as he is unlawfully detained in the jail and wrongly has not been granted the benefit of remissions. The petitioner was arrested in case FIR No. 8 dated 11.2.1991 registered at police Station Mehna, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of ` 1,00,000, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following Criminal Writ Petition No. 1738 of 2010 2 pleas:- A) The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of remissions during the period when he was on bail. B) The special remissions granted by the Governor, as per the policy of the State, must be granted to the petitioner even though he is convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The similar argument was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 66 of 2009 titled as “Jugraj Singh v. State of Punjab and Others”, decided on 31.7.2009, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, relying upon the judgment rendered in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 910-918 of 2001, decided on 11.9.2001) arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1193-94 of 2000, decided on 11.9.2001, held that the period of bail cannot be considered for remission even if notification has been issued by the Government in this regard. So far as the second plea is concerned, the State Government has formulated a policy that those persons, who have been convicted for the offence under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, are not entitled for remissions. This policy of the State was the subject matter of the writ petition “Court on its Own Motion v. State of Punjab and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 20241 of 2008, decided on 16.9.2010), wherein a Division Bench of this Court upheld the policy and held as under:- “4...The policy framed by the State Government lays Criminal Writ Petition No. 1738 of 2010 3 down the class of prisoners who would be entitled to get the benefit of remission and also the period of remission to be granted to the prisoners' as per the period of sentence awarded to them. In the policy, state has also clarified a class convicts who would not be entitled to avail the benefit of remission. Thus, the policy formulated would make the grant of remission more orderly and rationally...” For the reasons stated in Joginder Singh's case (supra) and Court on its Own Motion v. State of Punjab and Others (supra), this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge January 24, 2011 “DK”