IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.664 of 2009 AWADH RAM SON OF SRI RAJA RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELONY, P.S.KORMA,DISTRICT SHEIKHPURA ---- PETITIONER Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.SUPTD.SHEIKHPURA JAIL 3.SUPTD.CENTRAL JAIL, BHAGALPUR --- RESPONDENTS ----------- 3/ 10.09.2009 Heard Mr.Ashwini Kumar Sinha for the petitioner, and Mr.Prabhakar Tekrival, learned Government Advocate No.1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to compensate him for his late release from custody. The facts for the disposal of the writ petition are admitted and may be briefly indicated. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sheikhpura in G.R.No. 269 of 1999/T.R.No. 285 of 2000, (State of Bihar Vrs.Awadh Ram and another), on 6.12.2000, under the provisions of Section 25(1-B)A read with Section 26 of the Arms Act. He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for his conviction under Section 25(1-B)A of the Arms Act, and he has been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight months for his conviction under Section 26 of the Arms 2 Act. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. His appeal has been dismissed. The petitioner served the full sentence, and was released after the delay of two months and two days. In other words, the admitted position is that he has remained in custody in excess. He was in custody in excess of two months and two days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he should be suitably compensated for his incarceration in excess of the sentence awarded by the criminal court. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner did not surrender for six years after his appeal was dismissed by the appellate court. In his submission, therefore, it is not a fit case in which compensation may be awarded to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that the delay in surrender took place for the reason that his counsel did not inform him of the disposal of the appeal. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of 3 learned counsel for the parties. In view of scanty materials on record, it is not possible for the court to examine the petitioner’s contention as to the justification in the delay in surrender before the learned court below to serve out the remainder of his sentence after his appeal was dismissed. He admittedly surrendered after lapse of six years, but equally admitted position is that the petitioner has remained in custody in excess by two months and two days. Paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 is being reproduced herein: “That because of the mistake of the then jail authorities, the petitioner has remained in jail for two months 2 days more than the actual sentence.” In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the delay in petitioner’s release from custody is entirely attributable to the jail authorities. In that view of the matter, the State of Bihar is directed to compensate the petitioner by a 4 notional amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand) within a period of two months from today. It goes without saying that it will be open to the State Government to realize the amount from the functionaries responsible for the delay in the petitioner’s release from jail. Inspector General of Prisons, Government of Bihar, shall ensure implementation of the order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. ( S.K.Katriar,J.) Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)