Back
HARKESH MANUJA
Ajay – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral)
Present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 13.12.2013 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, thereby, upholding the judgment and order dated 04.07.2013 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar, vide which, the petitioner was ordered to be convicted under Section 9 of the PAROLE ACT , 1988 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner being an accused in FIR No.27, dated 29.04.2006, registered under Sections 302 /449 IPC and Sections 25 /54/59 of the ARMS ACT , Police Station Salhawas, District Jhajjar, was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.21,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months, vide judgment dated 30.08.2010 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar. Being in custody in pursuance to the aforesaid
Petitioner is not entitled for the relief as contended in the petition to make the sentence as concurrent instead of consecutive and there is an explicit proviso under Section 426 of Cr.P.C., with re....
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 p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when there is a sentence of life imprisonment, both sentences should run concurrently as per sec. 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The court considered the purpose of parole, the period already suffered by the petitioner, and the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Court in similar cases to grant the petitioner 4th regu....
The court established that satisfactory conduct during parole can justify further parole requests, emphasizing the rehabilitative purpose of parole.
The court clarified that unless explicitly ordered, sentences from multiple convictions run consecutively under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., accommodating set-off for time served, emphasizing the legislat....
The court reaffirmed that judicial decisions must be respected and that the definition of hardcore prisoner under the Act did not apply to the petitioner, ensuring his right to parole.
Prior term sentences must be served before subsequent life sentence under Section 427(1) CrPC unless court directs concurrency; Section 427(2) applies only when prior sentence is life imprisonment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
