Crl. Misc. No.M-22719 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-22719 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28th July, 2011 Ashok Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Ms. Bhupinder Pal Kaur Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Crl. Misc. No.39778 and 39779 of 2011: Allowed as prayed for. Main Case: Ashok Kumar, a convict for the offence of dowry death under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC), has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr. P. C.), seeking direction to respondents to allow benefit of remissions to the petitioner which were granted while the petitioner was on bail during the pendency of his appeal. Petitioner had earlier filed petition bearing No.M-25144 of 2009 claiming similar benefit. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.09.2009 (Annexure P-1) directing the competent authority to examine the case of the petitioner and to provide him benefit of remissions announced till before 11.09.2001 and also to consider his Crl. Misc. No.M-22719 of 2011 (O&M) -2- premature release case. It was, however, made clear that the benefit of remissions shall be granted if the same is available as per rules. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.3 Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur has passed order dated 24.09.2009 (Annexure P-2) denying the benefit of the remissions claimed by the petitioner because the said remissions are not applicable to certain categories of convicts including convicts under Section 304-B IPC for offence of dowry death. The petitioner has also challenged the said order Annexure P-2 in the instant petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that convicts who were on bail during pendency of their appeals are entitled to benefit of remissions granted during the bail period till before 11.09.2001, but the benefit of said remissions is not being extended to the petitioner. The contention is misconceived and untenable. It is correct that benefit of remissions granted till before 11.09.2001 has to be extended to certain categories of convicts on bail, but the said benefit is to be extended only to those convicts who are covered by the orders of remissions. It is specifically mentioned in impugned order Annexure P-2 that convicts under Section 304-B IPC for offence of dowry death are specifically excluded from the benefit of remissions. It is specifically mentioned in the orders of remissions that the benefit thereof cannot be granted to convicts under Section 304-B IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that orders of remissions exclude the benefit thereof to convicts of the offence of dowry death. The petitioner stands Crl. Misc. No.M-22719 of 2011 (O&M) -3- convicted for offence of dowry death under Section 304-B IPC. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to benefit of the aforesaid remissions. There is, therefore, no infirmity in impugned order Annexure P-2. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 28th July, 2011 'raj'