Acquittal does not erase prior conduct constituting an offence under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act, even if it takes retrospective effect.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Pankaj Jain, J.

Petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.47 dated 19.03.2022 registered at Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar under Sections 8 & 9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short 'the 1988 Act').

2. The petitioner was booked in FIR No.215 dated 22.06.2010 registered for offences punishable under Sections 302/307/120B IPC at Police Station City Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. While serving sentence, he was temporarily released for 25 days on agricultural parole w.e.f. 09.12.2019 in terms of release order passed by District Magistrate, Jhajjar dated 09.12.2019. He was directed to surrender on or before 04.01.2020 i.e. on expiry of 25 days agricultural parole. Petitioner approached this Court in CRWP No.2240 of 2020 seeking extension of parole. Vide order dated 28.01.2021 the parole of the petitioner was extended till 30.08.2021. The petition was finally dismissed on 21.02.2022. The petitioner opted not to surrender on 30.08.2021 (i.e. when the extension granted by this Court expired) and remained an absconder. He surrendered before Jail authorities only on 22.02.2022.

3. On 02.03.2022, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against order of conviction was heard. The conviction of the petitioner was set aside and he was ordered to be acquitted. Copy of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1537 of 2018 titled as Taqdir v. State of Haryana dated 02.03.2022 : 2022(2) RCR (Criminal) 252 (SC) has been placed on record as Annexure P-3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR registered under Sections 8 & 9 of the 1988 Act cannot survive in view of the fact that the petitioner now stands acquitted by the Apex Court. It has been contended by him that the acquittal will take a retrospective effect and thus on the day, the petitioner is alleged to have jumped the parole he was not a convict and was not required to serve sentence. Reliance is being placed upon observations made by Apex Court in the case of Manni Lal v. Shri Parmai Lal & ors., (1971) AIR 330. He further submits that there was a decision taken by High-Powered Committee held under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Judge of this Court dated 09.05.2021 which extended the parole of the convicts by 90 days.

5. Per contra learned State counsel submits that so far as offence of the petitioner under Sections 8 & 9 of the 1988 Act is concerned, the petitioner cannot hide behind order of acquittal which is a subsequent event. The moment the petitioner jumped the parole, offence was committed. He further submits that rather in terms of directions issued by the High-Powered Committee of this Court exception was carved out to deny release on special parole to the convicts who have violated the order of parole or of special parole.

6. I have heard rival contentions of the learned counsels representing the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully.

7. Facts are not much in dispute. The questions that arise for the consideration of this Court are :-

(a) Can the petitioner take refuge under the decision of high-Powered Committee to claim that he was not required to surrender on expiry of extended parole; and

(b) Whether the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner in the main case for which he was serving sentence can have an effect of erasing the conduct of the petitioner which constitutes new offence?

8. Coming on to the first question, the relevant extract of High- Powered Committee reads as under :-

For Release of Convicted Prisoners

(A). The convicts who are at present on parole should be granted Special Parole for 90 days (as a one time measure only).

(B). The convicts who have previously availed Special Parole, as per the orders of High Powered Committee in the year 2020 and surrendered in time, should be granted fresh 90 days Special Parole (as a one time measure only) on the same set of sureties, if the s