IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-33672 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 22, 2008 Harcharan Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. (Oral) Crl. Misc. No. 59386 of 2008 Allowed, as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-33672 of 2008 Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. The petitioner is under incarceration following his conviction in a case under the N.D.P.S. Act. A plea preferred by him for his premature release was declined by the Competent Authority on the premise that he is undergoing sentence in a case Crl. Misc. No. M-33672 of 2008 under the N.D.P.S. Act. The Competent Authority, in support of that view, drew sustenance from the provisions of Section 32-A of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is common ground otherwise that the relevant controversy is pending consideration at the hands of the Apex Court. In support of the contention that the embargo indicated by the provisions of Section 32-A of the N.D.P.S. Act, does not affect the jurisdictional powers of the Governor of the State to grant remission in exercise of powers under Section 161 of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon two judgments rendered by this Court in Ekka Ram vs. State of Punjab in Criminal Writ Petition No. 839 of 2004 decided on 14.09.2005 and Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab in Criminal Writ Petition No. 79 of 2005 decided on 1.3.2005. The judgment in Ekka Ram’s case (supra) is under challenge before the Apex court in an SLP filed by the State of Punjab. The learned State counsel does not controvert that proposition on facts. The pure and simple plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is that if the disposal of the SLP is delayed, even an ultimate favourable decision would be of no use because the petitioner – prisoner would have undergone the entire period of sentence by that time. A similar eventuality was adjudicated upon by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Surya Kant, J) in Criminal Writ 2 Crl. Misc. No. M-33672 of 2008 Petition No. 1179 of 2006 (Surjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others.) and the following order was passed on 22.02.2007: “11. The workable solution for the interregnum has been effectively devised by another learned Single Judge of this court vide order dated November 8, 2006 passed in Crl. W.P. No. 768 of 2005 (Ajaib Singh s/o Jit Singh v. State of Punjab & Others), wherein the petitioner, who was a similarly situated convict under the NDPS Act, was ordered to be temporarily released subject to his fulfilling 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 subtraction 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 case Ekka Ram [SLP (Crl.) No. 2496 of 2006] arising from the final judgment and order dated 14.09.2005 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 839 of 2004. The convict concerned be granted the benefit of remission as per the circulars issued by Government of Punjab under Article 161, after his conviction. ii) The petitioner will remain on bail during the pendency of S.L.P. No. 2496 of 2006 in Hon’ble Supreme Court. If as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, benefit of remission 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 3 Crl. Misc. No. M-33672 of 2008 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. Following the order dated November 8, 2006 passed by this Court, the operative part of which has been reproduced above, these petitions are also disposed of with a direction that the cases of the petitioners for their temporary release be considered and if they fulfill all the terms and conditions laid down by this Court in the order dated November 8, 2006, they be also temporarily released on bail on the same terms and conditions. The entire exercise shall be done by the concerned Superintendents of Jails as early as possible but not later than one month from today.” This petition involving facts, which are exactly similar to those involved in Surjan Singh’s case (supra), shall stand disposed of in terms of order Annexure P/1. December 22, 2008 (S.D. Anand) vkd Judge 4