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/