Criminal Misc. No. M-2061 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-2061 of 2009 Date of Decision:24.03.2009 Amarjit Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Varinder Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. Amarjit Singh, who was convicted and sentenced on 7.6.2003 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, `the Act') in case FIR No.101 dated 31.3.2001 under Section 15 ibid, Police Station Sadar, Dadri has sought his pre-mature release on the premise of Criminal Writ Petition No.839 of 2004 bearing caption `Ekka Ram v. State of Punjab', Criminal Misc. No.51171-M of 2006 titled as `Mahi Ram v. State of Haryana', Criminal Misc. No.63825-M of 2006 captioned as `Krishan and others v. State of Haryana' and Criminal Misc. No.M-10966 of 2008 titled as `Dara Singh v. State of Haryana' decided on 29.9.2008. In the joint written statement, the respondents have inter-alia Criminal Misc. No. M-2061 of 2009 -2- pleaded that the remission was granted by the Governor of Punjab State under Article 161 of the Constitution of India to the convicts of Punjab State on various occasions, but benefit of this remission was not granted by the jail authority of Punjab to the convicts under the Act due to embargo created under Section 32-A of the Act. In many cases, these petitions were accepted and the benefit of this special remission was allowed by this Court under certain conditions. After that, the State of Punjab filed Special Leave Petition against these orders of this High Court which is still pending. But no remissions have been granted by the Governor of Haryana under the aforesaid article. However, remissions were granted by the Haryana Government under Section 432 of Cr.P.C vide orders issued on various occasions in which it has been clearly directed that the remission will not be granted to the convicts who are convicted under the Act. As such, in view of these facts, the petitioner is not entitled for any remission. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The petitioner has come up with the plea that he has been getting remissions from the date of his conviction as per Government of Haryana Notification issued from time to time. The remissions granted were entered in the history ticket of the petitioner as well as other convicts under the Act but the same was withdrawn by Director General of Prisons, Haryana on the advise of the Legal Remembrancer. In reply, it has been submitted that the petitioner was granted ordinary remission erroneously under Para 633-A of the Punjab Jail Manual for which he was entitled as per Section 32-A of the Act and the same was withdrawn in compliance of letter dated 28.6.2006 issued by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana. Criminal Misc. No. M-2061 of 2009 -3- Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously urged that the embargo enshrined in Article 32-A of the Act in no manner affect the jurisdictional powers of the Governor of the State to grant remission in exercise of powers under Article 160 of the Constitution of India. To buttress this stance, he has sought to place abundant reliance upon the observations rendered by this Court in re: Ekka Ram (supra), Mahi Ram (supra), Krishan and others (supra) and Dara Singh (supra). concededly, the judgment in Ekka Ram's case (supra) is under challenge before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Punjab. On behalf of the petitioner, it is vehemently argued that if the disposal of the Special Leave Petition is delayed, even an ultimate favourable decision would be of no use, because the petitioner – convict would have undergone the entire period of sentence by such time. A similar eventuality was adjudicated upon by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Satish Kumar Mittal, Justice) in Mahi Ram's case (supra) in which the following order Annexure P.3 was passed on 8.11.2006:- “It is ordered that in the meanwhile, the petitioner be temporarily released, if he fulfills the following terms and conditions:- i) Before releasing the petitioner, the concerned Superintendent of Jail will verify the period undergone by the convict and the remissions granted under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and that if after subtracting the period on parole, the convict has undergone the sentence awarded by the Court, he shall be released temporarily on bail to the satisfaction of the Criminal Misc. No. M-2061 of 2009 -4- Chief Judicial Magistrate during the pendency of Special Leave Petition filed by State of Punjab in case of Ekka Ram (SLP (Crl.) No.2496 of 2006) arising from the final judgement and order dated 14.9.2005 passed in Crl.W.P. No.839 of 2004. The convict concerned will be granted the benefit of remission as per the circulars issued by the Government of Punjab under Article 161, after his conviction. ii) The petitioner will remain on bail during the pendency of SLP No.2496 of 2006 in Hon'ble Supreme Court. If as per the judgement of the Supreme Court, benefit of remissions under Article 161 is not granted, the convict will surrender back in jail for undergoing the unexpired period of sentence. iii) At the time of release on bail, the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and will keep peace and will continue informing the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned his residential address from time to time.” A careful delving into the facts of the instant petition would reveal that the same are similar to those involved in Mahi Ram's case (supra). As such, this petition stands disposed of in terms of order Annexure P.3. March 24, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No