IMPORTANT POINT
Defiance of Parole order – When a sentence of imprisonment for a term is passed under the Code on an escaped convict, Section 426(2)(a) Cr.P.C., is applicable and Court has to take note of explicit provisions made in respect of sentence on escaped convict.

ORDER

H.P. Sandesh, J.—This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to set aside the judgment and order dated 15.03.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.24/2020 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapura in dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the count of delay and thereby confirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.11.2017 passed in C.C.No.1793/2014 by the V Additional Civil Judge & JMFC - IV Court, Vijayapura, for an offence punishable under Section 58 of the Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963 and acquit the petitioner and grant such other relief as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that this petitioner along with accused Nos.2 and 3 were tried and convicted in Sessions Case No.206/2005 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapura for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304 Part II of IPC and this petitioner was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of the fine amount to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No.664/2007 before this Court and vide order dated 28.06.2011 was pleased to confirm the conviction of the petitioner. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.3798/2018 before the Apex Court and the same also came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2019.

3. When he was undergoing the sentence, the jail authorities have considered his request for release him on parole and he was released on parole for 15 days from 05.11.2011 to 21.11.2011. But this petitioner did not return to the prison as per his parole order and thereafter he was arrested and remanded to custody on 28.09.2017 and a criminal case was registered against him for an offence punishable under Section 58 of the Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963. The petitioner pleaded guilty of the charges levelled against him. Hence, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and clarified that the said period of imprisonment would commence after the petitioner would have completed his sentence of life imprisonment imposed in Sessions Case No.206/2005. The said order was challenged before the Sessions Judge and while filing the appeal, there was a delay of 960 days and the appeal was dismissed and confirmed the sentence. Hence, the present petition is filed.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that the order passed by the trial Judge is against the settled proposition of law and both the Courts order has resulted in miscarriage of justice and the same was suffered from non-application of mind ordering to undergo sentence after completion of the imprisonment for life is harsh. The petitioner would undergo imprisonment for life subject to his remission. But with such sentence the petitioner after remission of sentence will have to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and he has already been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and now he is subjected to further imprisonment for a period of 6 months is against the settled principles of law. The delay also not properly considered by the Sessions Judge. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to take note of the fact that the conduct of the petitioner, who treated guilty for his non-returning to undergo imprisonment.

5. The learned counsel also in his arguments vehemently contended that both the Courts have failed to consider the factual aspects of the case. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Section 427(2) of Cr.P.C.

6. The learned counsel in support of his contentions has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and another reported in 1991 SCC (Cri) 965, wherein, the Apex Court also discussed with regard to S