IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 747 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 09, 2011 Ashok Kumar. ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. H.S. Sullar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner/revisionist – Ashok Kumar has challenged judgment dated 05.05.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, by virtue of which, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 8 and 9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further SI for a period of one month, as well Crl. Revision No.747 of 2011 as, the judgment dated 03.01.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Sirsa, whereby while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, the sentence was reduced from three years RI to 18 months RI. The facts of this case need not be reproduced in detail. Admittedly, the petitioner was undergoing imprisonment for life in case FIR No. 51, dated 10.04.1996 under Sections 302, 307, 452, 334, 323, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar, Sirsa and he was confined to Central Jail, Hisar. As per the order of the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, dated 28.05.2007 and order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa, dated 11.06.2007, he was released on parole for four weeks on 13.06.2007 with the direction to report /surrender in jail on 12.07.2007. However, he failed to report/surrender to the jail authorities till 22.07.2007; the Superintendent of Central Jail, Hisar, wrote a letter to the SHO, Police Station Sadar Sirsa regarding non-surrender of the petitioner-accused and on the basis of the said letter, case under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act was registered; Investigation was carried out and as the petitioner could not trace out, therefore, he was declared proclaimed offender by the learned Illaqa Magistrate. On 27.08.2009, the petitioner was arrested and was produced in the Court. He was charge-sheeted tired and was consequently, convicted and sentenced as noticed above. 2 Crl. Revision No.747 of 2011 During the trial, the petitioner has not disputed that he was released on parole and did not return back to the jail after expiry of period of parole. However, he took a plea that he was kept in illegal custody by the police but neither he could produce any documentary or oral evidence in order to prove this fact. The learned Trial Magistrate after taking into consideration his admission, as well as, other material evidence available on the record, convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, but his sentence was reduced from three years RI to 18 months RI. In the opinion of this Court, both the learned Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence available on the record and as such, there is no justification for this Court to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, in revisional jurisdiction, this Court ordinarily should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach the finding different from the Courts below. In the absence of any manifest, illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. There is nothing to be set right with the impugned order which calls interference by this Court and as a consequence thereof, present petition is dismissed. 3 Crl. Revision No.747 of 2011 May 09, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 4