Case: Jwala Prasad Sehgal Vs. State of Punjab

J.C. Shah, J.1. The petitioner’s son Ranbir Singh Sehgal was convicted and sentenced by different Courts for offences under Explosive Substance Act, conspiracy to commit dacoity, Arms Act and other offences and was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and to pay fine. The first sentence was imposed upon him on June 13, 1960, and the total sentence which he had to suffer was 12 years and 4 months. He had to pay Rs. 8500 in the aggregate as fine. It appears, however, that he had paid substantially the entire amount of fine. In normal course the last sentence would expire sometime in October 1972, but under the prison rules Ranbir Singh is entitled to certain remissions if the conditions prescribed are satisfied by him.2. The case of the petitioner is that in the record maintained by the prison authorities it was entered that Ranbir Singh Sehgal had earned a total remission of 3 years, 4 months and 26 days and he was, therefore, entitled to be released sometime in July 1969 but was not released. An affidavit is filed by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Patiala, who has stated that by some error it was recorded that Ranbir Singh Sehgal had earned remission which was of a longer duration than he was in law entitled to. He has also stated in his affidavit that when Ranbir Singh Sehgal was in the Mental Hospital, Amritsar, during the time when he was suffering sentence of imprisonment on November 8, 1965 he ran away from custody and was again arrested on July 13, 1966. In view of this conduct the Inspector-General of Prisons had in accordance with paragraph 633A, of the Punjab Jail Manual passed an order withdrawing certain remissions.3. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no evidence that the Inspector-General of Prisons had in fact cancelled the remissions. But we have before us a copy of the letter under the signature of the A. I. G. (who has written the letter for Inspector-General of Prisons) that the remission of 8 months and 3 days granted to Ranbir Singh Sehgal was cancelled under Rule 633-A, of the Punjab Jail Manual for escaping from lawful custody on November 8, 1965. It is not averred in the affidavit that the order was made by the. Inspector-General of Prisons and there is nothing on the record to show that the order was not made by the Inspector-General of Prisons but by some other officer.4. It was then urged that the Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana had power to cancel the remission and not the Inspector-General of Prisons Punjab; but no such plea appear to have been raised at any stage nor has any such averment been made in the petition or at any later stage even in the affidavit in rejoinder.>5. It was also urged that once the remission has been entered in the records of the prison and has been tallied as required under the rule there is no power to withdraw the remission. In our judgment there is no substance in these contentions. If by reason of any error there has been credited to a convict a larger period of remission than he is in law entitled to, it would be open to the authorities to rectify the record and to make it consistent with the true state of affairs.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]3. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no evidence that theof Prisons had in fact cancelled the remissions. But we have before us a copy of the letter under the signature of the A. I. G. (who has written the letter forf Prisons) that the remission of 8 months and 3 days granted to Ranbir Singh Sehgal was cancelled under Rule633A, of the Punjab Jail Manualfor escaping from lawful custody on November 8, 1965. It is not averred in the affidavit that the order was made by the.of Prisons and there is nothing on the record to show that the order was not made by theof Prisons but by some other officer.4. It was then urged that the Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana had power to cancel the remission and not theof Prisons Punjab; but no such plea appear to have been raised at any stage nor has any such averment been made in the petition or at any later stage even in the affidavit in rejoinder.It was also urged that once the remission has been entered in the records of the prison and has been tallied as required under the rule there is no power to withdraw the remission.In our judgment there is no substance in these contentions. If by reason of any error there has been credited to a convict a larger period of remission than he is in law entitled to, it would be open to the authorities to rectify the record and to make it consistent with the true state of affairs.