Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Man Singh vs State Of Raj on 26 May, 2010
1] D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE WRIT PETITION NO.4649/2010 Satya Narayan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2] D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE WRIT PETITION NO.4090/2010 Man Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 26.5.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAJJAN SINGH KOTHARI Mr. R.S. Gill ] for the petitioners Mr. Kaluram Bhati ] Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor Though these petitions have been preferred as D.B. Criminal Parole Writ Petitions but in fact these petitions are not parole writ petitions and are D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., therefore, these petitions are treated as D.B. Criminal Misc. Petitions. The facts of the case are that the petitioners-Man Singh S/o. Mukh Ram and Satya Narayan S/o. Jai Lal faced trial in Sessions Case No.5/81 for the offence under Sections 148, 364/149 and 302/149 I.P.C. and were convicted by judgment dated 17.8.1982 passed by the Sessions Judge, Churu. The petitioners were sentenced to undergo (i) life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' R.I. for offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C., (ii) Five years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.50/-, for offence under Section 364/149 I.P.C. and (iii) Eight months' R.I. for the offence under Section 148 of I.P.C. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioners preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No.314/1982, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 26.4.1997. In the warrant of committal to jail on a sentence of imprisonment or fine issued by the Sessions Judge, Churu dated 13.10.1982, a note has been appended that the sentence suffered by the petitioners-convict in judicial custody and police custody shall not be counted while counting the total sentence of the petitioners. Section 428 Cr. P.C. provides "that where an accused has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term, the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction, and the liability of such person to undergo imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the reminder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him". Therefore, the period undergone by the petitioners in jail during investigation, inquiry or trial of this case could not have been taken out from counting of the total period for which the petitioners can be kept in jail. In the judgment dated 17.8.1982 also, there is no order that the imprisonment which has been suffered by the petitioners in judicial custody or police custody shall not be counted as the sentence suffered obviously for the reason that it would have been contrary to the Section 428 Cr. P.C. In the Division Bench judgment the sentence could have been challenged and, therefore, the issue was not decided by the Division Bench while deciding the D.B. Criminal Appeal of the petitioners. Be that as it may, the warrant can be in consonance with the judgment and in warrant no condition can be imposed so as to enlarge the period of accused sentence beyond the statutory provision. In view of the fact that the final decision was given by the Division Bench, therefore, this D.B. Criminal Misc. Petitions under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are allowed. The condition mentioned in the warrant dated 17.8.1982 being contrary to law and contrary to the judgment in pursuance of which the warrant was issued, is set aside. The consequential effect be given by the concerned authorities. (SAJJAN SINGH KOTHARI), J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J.
Sanjay/