High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Daya Nand vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 December, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daya Nand vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 December, 2008
Criminal Misc. No.M-34446 of 2008                        -1-

                                      ****


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

                  Criminal Misc. No.M-34446 of 2008
                  Date of decision : 24.12.2008

Daya Nand                                                ....Petitioner

                         Versus
State of Haryana and others                              ...Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND

Present:     Mr. V.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner


S. D. ANAND, J.

Criminal Misc. No.60613 of 2008

Allowed as prayed for.

Criminal Misc. No.M-34446 of 2008

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr.S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy

Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

The petitioner is under incarceration following his conviction in

a case under the N.D.P.S. Act. A plea preferred by him for his premature

release was declined by the Competent Authority as he is undergoing

sentence in a case under the N.D.P.S. Act. The Competent Authority, in

support of that view, drew sustenance from the provisions of Section 32-A

of the N.D.P.S. Act.

It is common ground otherwise that the relevant controversy is

pending consideration at the hands of the Apex Court.

In support of the contention that the embargo indicated by the
Criminal Misc. No.M-34446 of 2008 -2-

****

provisions of Section 32-A of the N.D.P.S. Act, does not affect the

jurisdictional powers of the Governor of the State to grant remission in

exercise of powers under Section 161 of the Constitution of India, the

learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon two judgments rendered by

this Court in Ekka Ram vs. State of Punjab in Criminal Writ Petition No.

839 of 2004 decided on 14.09.2005 and Baldev Singh vs. State of

Punjab in Criminal Writ Petition No. 79 of 2005 decided on 1.3.2005.

The judgment in Ekka Ram’s case (supra) is under challenge before the

Apex court in an SLP filed by the State of Punjab.

The learned State counsel does not controvert that proposition

on facts. The pure and simple plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is that

if the disposal of the SLP is delayed, even an ultimate favourable decision

would be of no use because the petitioner – prisoner would have

undergone the entire period of sentence by that time.

A similar eventuality was adjudicated upon by a Coordinate

Bench of this Court (Satish Kumar Mittal, J.) in Criminal Misc. No. 51171-M

of 2006 (Mahi Ram Vs. The Secretary & Financial Commissioner to

Government of Haryana and others) and the following order was passed on

08.11.2006:

“It is ordered that in the meanwhile, the petitioner be

temporarily released, if he fulfills the following terms and

conditions:

i) Before releasing the petitioner, the concerned

Superintendent of Jail will verify the period undergone by the

convict and the remissions granted under Article 161 of the

Constitution of India and that if after subtracting the period on

parole, the convict has undergone the sentence awarded by
Criminal Misc. No.M-34446 of 2008 -3-

****

the Court, he shall be released temporarily on bail to the

satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate during the

pendency of Special Leave Petition filed by State of Punjab in

case Ekka Ram [SLP (Crl.) No. 2496 of 2006] arising from the

final judgment and order dated 14.09.2005 passed in Criminal

Writ Petition No. 839 of 2004. The convict concerned be

granted the benefit of remission as per the circulars issued by

Government of Punjab under Article 161, after his conviction.

ii) The petitioner will remain on bail during the

pendency of S.L.P. No. 2496 of 2006 in the Apex Court. If as

per the judgment of the Apex Court, benefit of remission under

Article 161 is not granted, the convict will surrender back in jail

for undergoing the unexpired period of sentence.

iii) At the time of release on bail, the petitioner will

give an undertaking that he will not leave the country without

prior permission of the Court and will keep peace and will

continue informing the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned his

residential address from time to time.”

This petition involving facts, which are exactly similar to those

involved in Mahi Ram’s case (supra), shall stand disposed of in terms of

order passed in Mahi Ram’s case.

December 24 2008                                     (S.D. ANAND)
Pka                                                      JUDGE