Crl. Misc. No. M-29100 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-29100 of 2008
Date of Decision: November 07, 2008
Mukhtiar Singh.
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others.
... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND.
Present : Ms.B.P.K. Brar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
S.D. Anand, J.
The petitioner – prisoner feeling aggrieved by the non-
consideration of premature release plea, filed a Crl. Misc. No. 39313-M of
2007, in the course whereof, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Surya Kant,
J.), after noticing that the petitioner – prisoner had already been convicted
on a charge of having over stayed on parole, ordered that the case of the
petitioner would be considered forthwith in accordance with law and as per
the instructions dated 08.07.1991. The plea presently raised is that
postponement of the premature release by five years, though in accord
with the instructions, is not in order.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State.
Crl. Misc. No. M-29100 of 2008 -2-
It is common ground that the petitioner was prosecuted on a
charge of having overshot parole and was convicted on that charge. In that
view of things, it would be inappropriate for the competent authority to
postpone consideration of premature release plea by five years. By the
very nature of things, the competent authority could have opted either for
the prosecution of the petitioner-prisoner for having over shot parole or it
could have refrained from launching prosecution and defer the
consideration of the premature release plea for a period of five years as
provided under the Rules on the subject. Once the former course of action
had been adopted, resort to deferment, though rule related, would amount
to double jeopardy.
The petition shall stand disposed of with a direction to the
Competent Authority to take a decision afresh on the parole plea of the
petitioner – prisoner in the light of observations made in the fore-going
para within fifteen days from today. It will be for the State counsel to
communicate the order to the Competent Authority.
Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under
the signatures of the Court Secretary.
November 07, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) Pka Judge