Crl. Misc. No. M-29100 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-29100 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 07, 2008 Mukhtiar Singh. … 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. S.D. Anand, J. The petitioner – prisoner feeling aggrieved by the non- consideration of premature release plea, filed a Crl. Misc. No. 39313-M of 2007, in the course whereof, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Surya Kant, J.), after noticing that the petitioner – prisoner had already been convicted on a charge of having over stayed on parole, ordered that the case of the petitioner would be considered forthwith in accordance with law and as per the instructions dated 08.07.1991. The plea presently raised is that postponement of the premature release by five years, though in accord with the instructions, is not in order. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Crl. Misc. No. M-29100 of 2008 -2- It is common ground that the petitioner was prosecuted on a charge of having overshot parole and was convicted on that charge. In that view of things, it would be inappropriate for the competent authority to postpone consideration of premature release plea by five years. By the very nature of things, the competent authority could have opted either for the prosecution of the petitioner-prisoner for having over shot parole or it could have refrained from launching prosecution and defer the consideration of the premature release plea for a period of five years as provided under the Rules on the subject. Once the former course of action had been adopted, resort to deferment, though rule related, would amount to double jeopardy. The petition shall stand disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to take a decision afresh on the parole plea of the petitioner – prisoner in the light of observations made in the fore-going para within fifteen days from today. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the Competent Authority. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. November 07, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) Pka Judge