Criminal Writ Petition No.2381 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No.2381 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.04.2011. Kuldip Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, D.A.G. Punjab, for the respondents – State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) By judgment dated October 9th, 2002 passed by Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, Kuldip Singh-petitioner was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'N.D.P.S. Act') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of ` 1,00,000/- with default stipulation, in case bearing First Information Report No.55 dated July 25th, 2000, Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana. 2. By filing this petition, he seeks benefit of remissions in view of orders passed by the State Government dated August 14th, 2003, July 13th, 2004, September 1st, 2004, November 15th, 2005 and June 16th, 2006 (Annexures P/3 to P/7 respectively), whereby, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 432 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 161 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Punjab was pleased to remit the portion of unexpired sentence of the convicts lodged during that period in jail. Per the custody certificate (Annexure P/2), the petitioner was in jail from October 9th, 2002 to April 25th, 2007. 3. In reply filed by the State, it has been stated that Criminal Writ Petition No.2381 of 2010 2 petitioner has already undergone actual sentence of 6 years and 26 days as on January 23rd, 2011. It has been also pleaded that he is not entitled to the benefits of remissions, in view of Section 32A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, whereby, no sentence awarded under N.D.P.S. Act shall be suspended, remitted or commuted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of remissions, which have been granted by the State under Article 161 of Constitution of India as well as provisions of Punjab Jail Manual, during the period, he remained confined in jail after conviction, that is, from October 9th, 2002 to April 25th, 2007 and October 11th, 2010 to January 23rd, 2011. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon Ekka Ram vs. State of Punjab (Criminal Writ Petition No.839 of 2004 decided on September 14th, 2005). 5. In Ekka Ram vs. State of Punjab (supra), it was observed as under by this Court: - “On due consideration of rival submissions, it appears that Hon'ble the Apex Court in a three judge Bench judgment JT 2000(Suppl.1) SC 449 (Dadu alias Tulsidas etc. versus State of Maharashtra etc.) in para No.15 has discussed the powers of the President and Governor of the State under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, respectively. From the ratio of the discussion, it appears that the embargo under Section 32-A of the Act is applicable only to executive decisions under Section 432 Cr.P.C. and it would not apply for the purpose of imposing any restriction on the powers of the President and Governors. As the impugned circular (Annexure P-2) has been issued also in exercise of the powers of the Governor, Punjab under Article 161 of the Constitution, the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the Criminal Writ Petition No.2381 of 2010 3 petitioner appear to carry force and deserve consideration.” 6. Above being the legal and factual position, this Court directs the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to the remissions granted by the State during the period, he remained in custody after conviction, that is, from October 9th, 2002 to April 25th, 2007 and October 11th, 2010 to January 23rd, 2011 and in case, he is found to be covered under special remissions granted by the State under Article 161 of the Constitution as well as Punjab Jail Manual or any circular issued during that period, within two months from the date on receipt of this order. 7. Disposed of accordingly. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 20.04.2011 neetu