VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The persons who are enlarged on bail cannot claim benefit of remission notification issued by State Govt. during the period when they were on bail.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 326, 325, 324 r/w 34-Offences under-Respondents 3 to 5 convicted and sentenced to 1½ years RI-Served for 2 months 25 days-Released on bail-In the meanwhile State Govt. notifications announced remission in sentence-Whether the respondents 3 to 5 are entitled to that remission in sentence? (No)-But while undergoing sentence if such a notification comes they would be entitled to it-Appeals of appellants allowed accordingly-Case law referred.
       Held : With respect, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the said respondents. In other words, acceptance of this argument, in our opinion, would reduce the criminal justice system to mockery as has been said by this Court in Nauratta Singh s case (supra). In the cases cited by the appellant, this Court has categorically held that there is substantial difference between the words "parole" and "furlough" on one hand and the expression "bail" on the other. These judgments have also held that persons who are enlarged on bail cannot claim the benefit of the period during which they were on bail for the purpose of counting the period of sentence already undergone to apply the remission given by the Government. In view of this clear enunciation of law, in our opinion, even by the inclusion of the word bail in the notification of the Punjab Government an accused who has always remained on bail or has not served the substantial part of his sentence cannot take advantage of the remission notification. (Para 10)
       After referring to case law
       Held : In view of the pronouncement of this Court also, we are of the opinion that the High Court fell in error in accepting the argument of the said respondents that they are entitled for the benefit of the period of remission given by the various notifications cumulatively to be counted against the period during which they were on bail. In our opinion, while applying the period of remission granted by the Government under any remission notification the period during which an accused person was on bail cannot be taken into account. For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the High Court is set aside. We allow the appeals and also set aside the letter of the 2nd Respondent herein dated 18th of September, 1998 addressed to the CJM and direct the said respondents to serve the remainder period of their sentence. We make it clear if during the period of serving their sentence any fresh remission notification is issued by the concerned Government, the same will be made applicable on terms and conditions enumerated in the said notification if it is applicable to the said respondents. The appeals are accordingly allowed. (Paras 13 & 14)

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-Leave granted.

2. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in these appeals (hereinafter to be referred to as the said respondents) along with one Rachhpal Singh, their father, were convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nabha on 13.8.1987 for offences punishable under Sections 326, 325, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. On an appeal filed against the said judgment and conviction, the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, confirmed the convictions as against respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and allowed the appeal of Rachhpal Singh and acquitted him of the charges alleged against him. Against the said judgment of the appellate court, the said respondents filed a revision petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh and the learned Single Judge who heard the revision petition, dismissed the same on 17.7.1998 upholding the conviction and sentence awarded to the said respondents.

3. It is of importance to note that during the period of trial ending with confirmation of conviction in the revision petition by the High Court respondents 3 to 5 were almost all the time were on bail except for a period of about 2 months and 25 days when they were in jail, serving part of their sentence.

4. On the dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court, it is stated that the said respondents surrendered before the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, on 29.7.1998 and on the very same day they were released by the jail authorities.

5. The appellant herein who was the complainant in the original criminal case on coming to know of the release of the said respondents, filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, (for short the CJM ) contending that the said respondents who had been awarded RI for one year and six months did not undergo the actual sentence and that they had been released by the jail authorities fraudulently because of their influence. The learned CJM on the basis of the said application called for a report from the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Patiala, respondent No.2 herein, to assign reasons why the said respondents have been released on the very day on which they surrendered to serve their sentence. In reply to the said query of the Court, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala vide his letter dated 18.9.1998 informed the Court that the said respondents had been released from jail by virtue of the benefit given to them by the Punjab Government regarding their remission of sentence as per the notifications issued from time to time between the period 13.7.1988 and 29.7.1998. The learned CJM accepting the said report closed the petition of the appellant.

6. Being aggrieved by the said closure of their petition, the appellant moved the Punjab & Haryana High Court by way of a criminal miscellaneous petition praying that the letter dated 18.9.1998 written by respondent No. 2 wherein the said respondents were given the benefit of remission be quashed and that the said respondents be taken into custody for undergoing the remaining period of sentence. A learned Single Judge of the High Court as per his order dated 9.12.1999 after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the said respondents were entitled to the remission given by the Government under various notifications issued by it during the period from 13.7.1988 to 29.7.1998. According to the learned Judge, if the periods of remission granted under various notifications are to be taken into consideration cumulatively then the said period would cover the period of sentence awarded to the said respondents and even though they had not in fact served the sentence by virtue of the fact that they were enlarged on bail, they would be deemed to have served the sentence. Hence, on that basis the criminal petition came to be dismissed. It is against that judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 9.12.1999 made in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 32414-M/98 that these appeals are preferred. On beh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1260

VERY IMPORTANT POINTThe persons who are enlarged on bail cannot claim benefit of remission notification issued by State Govt. during the period when they were on bail.

Cases Referred (4)

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The persons who are enlarged on bail cannot claim benefit of remission notification issued by State Govt. during the period when they were on bail.