Criminal Misc. No.M-23615 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-23615 of 2008 Date of decision : 01.10.2008 Amarjit Singh alias Amba .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Ms. B.P.K. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.. S. D. ANAND, J. The premature release plea filed by the petitioners was declined by the competent authority on the premise that they are incarcerated following their conviction for an offence under the N.D.P.S.Act. A such like controversy came up before a Coordinate Bench (S.K.Mittal, J.) of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 768 of 2005 (Ajaib Singh son of Jit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others). That was a petition filed by the convicts under the N.D.P.S Act for their premature release. In that case this Court passed the following orders on 8.11.2006:- “This petition has been filed by a convict under the N.D.P.S. Act for directing the jail authorities to grant them Criminal Misc. No.M-23615 of 2008 -2- **** remission under the various notifications issued under Article 161 of the Constitution of India by the Governor of Punjab. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of the embargo created under Section 32-A of the N.D.P.S. Act, the remission granted by the Governor of State in exercise of the power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India will be available to the convicts under the N.D.P.S. Act. In support of his contention, counsel relies upon two judgments of this Court i.e. Ekka Ram Versus State of Punjab in Criminal Writ Petition No.839 of 2004 decided on 14.09.2005 and Baldev Singh Versus State of Punjab in Criminal Writ Petition No.79 of 2005 decided on 1.3.2005. Against the judgment passed by this Court in Ekka Ram Versus State of Punjab, the State of Punjab has filed a SLP, which is pending before the Supreme Court. While referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in G.V.Ramaniah Vs. Superintendent of Central Jail, Rajahmundry and others, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 31, counsel for the respondent-State argued that the aforesaid two judgments of this Court i.e. Ekka Ram Versus State of Punjab in Criminal Writ Petition No.839 of 2004 decided on 14.09.2005 and Baldev Singh Versus State of Punjab in Criminal Writ Petition No.79 of 2005, Criminal Misc. No.M-23615 of 2008 -3- **** decided on 1.3.2005 require reconsideration. Learned counsel submits that the offences under the N.D.P.S. Act relate to the matters which are exclusively within the competence of the Union Legislature, therefore, for the offences committed under this Act only the President of India can grant remission in exercise of the executive powers of the Union under Article 72 of the Constitution of India. Since the matter is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, I deem it appropriate to adjourn the case since die to award the decision of the S.L.P. However, counsel for the petitioners pointed out the urgency in the matter. He argued that in some cases the convicts have already undergone to an extent that if the disputed remissions are added then they become entitled for release and if in that situation the decision comes after some time then their petition will become infructuous as by that time they will be released even without remission. Keeping in view these facts, 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-23615 of 2008 -4- **** 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate during the pendency of Special Leave Petition filed by State of Punjab in the 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.” There is apparent parity, as between the petitioners in the case before this Court and the petitioners in Criminal Writ Criminal Misc. No.M-23615 of 2008 -5- **** Petition No. 768 of 2005 (Ajaib Singh son of Jit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others). The plea of parity is not contested on behalf of the State. The petition shall stand disposed of accordingly in the light of the order dated 8.11.2006 passed in Ajaib Singh's case (supra). October 01, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE