Criminal Misc. No. M-10471 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-10471 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.04.2011. Shamsher Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Rajinder Singh Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH.J By this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner prays for counting the period of parole of 45 days availed from June 23rd, 2009 to July 8th, 2009 and July 23rd, 2010 to August 21st, 2010 towards the total period of imprisonment undergone by him. 2. To support the contention, reliance has been placed upon Duni Ram versus State of Haryana and another [Criminal Misc. No.19131-M of 2004 decided on November 23rd, 2004 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Baldev Singh (as he then was)]. The petitioner is governed by Section 3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) 3. Section 3 of the Act reads as under: - “3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds.-- (1) The State government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate or any other appointed in this behalf, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section (2), any prisoner, if the State Government is satisfied that- (a) a member of the prisoner's family had died or is seriously ill or the prisoner himself is seriously ill; or Criminal Misc. No. M-10471 of 2011 (O&M) 2 (b) the marriage of prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, brother, sister, sister's son or daughter is to be celebrated; or (c) the temporary release of the petitioner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation on his land or his father's undivided land actually in possession of the prisoner; or (d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. (2) The period for which a prisoner may be released shall be determined by the State Government so as not to exceed- (a) where the prisoner is to be released on the grounds specified in clause (a) of sub- section (1), three weeks; (b) where the prisoner is to be released on the grounds specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub-section (1), four weeks; and (c) where the prisoner is to be released on the grounds specified in clause (c) of sub- section (1), six weeks; Provided that the temporary release under clause (c) can be availed more than once during the year, which shall not, however, cumulatively exceed six weeks. (3) The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of sentence of a prisoner. (4) The State Government may, by notification, authorise any officer to exercise its powers under this section in respect of all or any other ground specified thereunder.” 4. Under Rule 2 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 2007, “parole” means temporary release of a convict. 5. In Avtar Singh versus State of Haryana and Criminal Misc. No. M-10471 of 2011 (O&M) 3 another, 2002(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 786, appellant was undergoing the sentence of imprisonment. He filed application before this Court seeking direction to the State Government to include the period of parole availed by him in the total period of imprisonment undergone. The application was dismissed by this Court holding that the period of parole cannot be counted towards the actual sentence undergone by him. Being aggrieved of the same, he filed appeal by special leave before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. He also filed a writ petition challenging the vires of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. A Full Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court referring the judgment of a Constitution Bench Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and others, 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 176, wherein it was held that the period of temporary release of a prisoner on parole is to be counted towards the total period of detention, unless it is otherwise provided by legislative act, rules, instructions or terms of the grant of parole. So it cannot be said that such right of the petitioner was taken away without due process of law and the appeal was dismissed. In view of this, period of parole cannot be counted towards actual sentence undergone by the petitioner. Thus, the authority relied upon by the petitioner is of no avail. 6. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 06.04.2011 neetu Note:- Whether refer to reporter: Yes