State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, (SC) BS32648
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Saghir Ahmad and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2000 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 1810 of 1999). D/d. 7.2.2000

State of Haryana - Appellants

Versus

Mohinder Singh - Respondent

WITH Cr. Appeal No. 142 of 2000 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 145 of 2000).

State of Haryana - Appellants

Versus

Ashok Kumar - Respondent

WITH Cr. Ap. No. 143 of 2000 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 1812 of 1999).

State of Haryana - Appellants

Versus

Manjeet Singh - Respondent

WITH Cri. Appeal No. 145 of 2000 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Cr.) Nos. 2033-2034 of 1999).

State of Haryana - Appellants

Versus

Mukhtiar Singh - Respondents

WITH Cri. Appeal No. 146 of 2000 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 2151 of 1999).

State of Haryana - Appellants

Versus

Mehar Singh - Respondent

WITH Cr. Appeal No. 147 of 2000 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 643 of 1999).

The Director General of Prisons, Haryana - Appellants

Versus

Harphool - Respondent

For the Appellants :- Mr. Mahabir Singh, Mr. S.R. Sharma, Mr. Shikha Roy Pabbi, Mr. S.K. Pabbi and Mr. Prem Malhotra, Advocates.

For the Respondents :- Ranjit Rao, Mr. Kishan Datta, (Mr. Dayan Krishnan) Advocates.

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 432 - Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, Section 3(1) - Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, Section 3(1) - Punjab Jail Manual, Paras 634, 635 and 637 - Parole and Furlough are two distinct terms - When a prisoner is on parole his period of release does not count towards total period of sentence while when he is on furlough he is eligible to have the period of release counted towards the total period of his sentence undergone by him.

[Paras 15 and 16]

B. Punjab Jail Manual, Paras 634, 635 and 637 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 432 - Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, Section 3(1) - Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, Section 3(1) - Remissions granted by Government in exercise of powers under Section 432 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Prisoners who were on bail or where their sentence was suspended under 389 Criminal Procedure Code during pendency of appeal are not entitled to remissions for the period during which they were on bail.

[Paras 7 and 20]

C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 432 - Punjab Jail Manual, Paras 634, 635 and 637 - Remissions granted by Govt. in exercise its power under Section 432 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Prisoners convicted of rape under Section 376 Indian Penal Code are not entitled to remissions.

[Paras 7 and 8, 19]

D. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 432 - Grant of remissions by Government under Section 432 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Prisoners have no absolute right for remission of their sentence unless except what is prescribed by law and the circular issued by the Government granting remissions - Power of remission, however, cannot be exercised by Govt. arbitrarily.

[Para 8]

Cases Referred :-

Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan and others, 1987(3) SCC 347.

Jai Prakash v. State of Haryana and others, 1987(4) SCC 296.

Nalamolu Appala Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 192.

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J. - Leave granted.

2. In five of the appeals (arising from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1810/99, 145/2000, 1812/99, 2033-34/99 and 2151/99) out of the batch of six question involved is if the respondent, a convict, is entitled to remission of his sentence for the period during which he is on bail. In the sixth appeal (arising from SLP (Crl.) 643/99) question is if the prisoner, who is convicted of an offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code), though confined in jail, is entitled to remission of his sentence when the Government circular issued under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal procedure ('Code' for short) does not grant such remission to an inmate who has been convicted under Section 376 Indian Penal Code.

3. High Court in batch of five appeals observed that conviction and sentence are two separate terms and that the moment a person is convicted he becomes stigmatic. High Court said that at that point of time he is a convict and if he has been granted bail by the appellate Court it is by virtue of provision of Section 389 of the Code and his sentence stands suspended and not that his conviction is suspended and that with the dismissal of appeal of such convict stigma of conviction is not wiped off. High Court was, therefore, of the opinion that such a convict would be entitled to remission for the period he was on bail when the circular gave the benefit of remission to a prisoner on parole/furlough. High Court gave direction to the State Government to reconsider the case of the convict who, it said, should be entitled to the remission as per the circular during the period he was on bail.

4. In the sixth appeal (arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 643/99), where the respondent was convicted for an offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, High Court considered various provisions of the Punjab Jail Manual as applicable in the State of Haryana (paras 634, 635 amd 637 of the Jail Manual) and held that the prisoner in this case was also entitled to remission as was granted to those prisoners who were on parole/furlough or were in jail on the date of the circular granting remission.

5. Before we consider the rival contentions it would be appropriate to set out the circulars granting remission to the prisoners. These circulars have been issued under Section 432 of the Code and their language is same. They were issued on different dates on July 22, 1987; March 16, 1988; August 14, 1989; August 14, 1991; January 29, 1992; April 29, 1993; and August 14, 1995. First such circular dated July 22, 1987 is applicable from July 6, 1987 and is as under :-

(i) Those who have been sentenced for a period exceeding 10 years 1 year
(ii) Those who have been sentenced for a period exceeding 2 years and upto 10 years. 6 months
(iii) Those who have been sentenced for a period upto 2 years 3 months

2. Remission will also be granted to all the convicts who were on parole/furlough from the jail on 6th July, 1987 subject to the condition that they surrender at the jail on the due date after the expiry of parole/furlough period for undergoing unexpired portions of their sentences.

3. Sentence of imprisonment imposed in default of payment of the fine shall not be treated as substantive for the purpose of grant of this remission.

4. All the prisoners convicted by Civil Courts of criminal jurisdiction (Criminal Court of Competent Jurisdiction ?) in Haryana but undergoing their sentences in jails outside Haryana shall be entitled to the grant of remission on the above scale.

5. The remission will not be admissible to :-

(vii) The persons who committed any major jail offence during the last two years and were punished for the same under the relevant provisions of Punjab Jail Manual; and

(viii) The persons who got the benefit of such a remission during the past one year from 6.7.1987. The grant of this remission to life convicts will not effect the provisions of Section 433-A Criminal Procedure Code.

Dated Chandigarh the 22.7.1987

M.C. Gupta
Financial Commissioner and Secy.
to Govt. Haryana, Jails
Department."

Section 432 of the Code under which circular has been issued we reproduce-

6. Article 161 of the Constitution also grants power to the Governor to grant pardons, etc. Though that Article may not be quite relevant in the present appeals but we may note the same -

7. It is not disputed that the circulars have been issued by the State Government in the exercise of powers conferred under Section 432 of the Code. Its authority to issue the circulars has not been questioned. From the language of the circular aforesaid it is relevant to note three points for the purpose of these appeals : (1) It grants special remission to the prisoners, who are confined in jails in the State of Haryana on July 6, 1987 (2) Remission is also to be granted to all the convicts who are even on parole/furlough from the jail on July 6, 1987 (3) The remission of sentence cannot be granted to prisoners convicted of rape or dowry deaths.

8. The circular granting remission is authorised under the law. It prescribes limitations both as regards the prisoners who are eligible and those who have been excluded. Conditions for remission of sentence to the prisoners who are eligible are also prescribed by the circular. Prisoners have no absolute right for remission of their sentence unless except what is prescribed by law and the circular issued thereunder. That special remission shall not apply to a prisoner convicted of a particular offence can certainly be relevant consideration for the State Government not to exercise power of remission in that case. Power of remission, however, cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Decision to grant remission has to be well informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned.

9. Terms bail, furlough and parole have different connotations. Bail is well understood in criminal jurisprudence. Provisions of bail are contained in Chapter XXXIII of the Code. It is granted by the officer-in-charge of a police station or by the Court when a person is arrested and is accused of an offence other than non-bailable offence. Court grants bail when a person apprehends arrest in case of non-bailable offence or is arrested of a non- bailable offence. When a person is convicted of an offence he can be released on bail by the appellate Court till his appeal is decided. If he is acquitted his bail bonds are discharged and if appeal dismissed he is taken into custody. Bail can be granted subject to conditions. It does not appear to be quite material that during the pendency of appeal though his sentence is suspended he nevertheless remains a convict. For the exercise of powers under Section 432 it may perhaps be relevant that the State Government may remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which a person has been sentenced even though his appeal against conviction and sentence was pending at that time. Appeal in that case might have to abate inasmuch as the person convicted has to accept the conditions on which State Government remits the whole or in part of his punishment.

10. In Dictionary of American Penology, by Vergil L. Williams 'furlough' is described as under -

11. In the article 'Furlough Programs and Conjugal Visiting in Adult Correctional Institutions' by Carson W. Markley in Volume "Federal Probation" it is mentioned that "the term 'furlough' is frequently confused with special leave, which most adult institutions have long been willing to grant under extenuating circumstances, such as family crises. A prisoner on special leave customarily travels under escort, while on furlough he is on his own".

12. 'Furlough' according to Black's Law Dictionary (6th edn.) means "a leave of absence; e.g. a temporary leave of absence to one in the armed service of the country; an employee placed in a temporary status without duties and pay because of lack of work or funds or for other non-disciplinary reasons. Also the document granting leave of absence." According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary (new edition) "Furlough" means : "leave of absence, esp. granted to a member of the services or to a missionary".

Parole is defined in these two dictionaries as under :

The Concise Oxford Dictionary - New Edition

Black's Law Dictionary - Sixth Edition

13. In Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan and others, 1987(3) SCC 347 this Court was considering the nature and scope of parole in a case of preventive detention. It said :-

14. Para 20.8 in Chapter XX dealing with "System of Remission, Leave and Premature Release" of the Report of the All India Committee on Jail Reforms, 1980-83 (Volume-1) refers to leave which can be granted to the petitioner. The relevant portion is as under :

15. 'Furlough' and 'parole' are two distinct terms now being used in the Jail Manuals or laws relating to temporary release of prisoners. These two terms have acquired different meanings in the statute with varied results. Dictionary meanings, therefore, are not quite helpful. In this connection we may refer to the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 which has repealed the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. Punjab Act was earlier applicable in the State of Haryana. Language of both the Acts is same and it may be useful to refer Sections 3 and 4 of any of these two Acts to understand the difference between parole and furlough :-

16. It would be thus seen that when a prisoner is on parole his period of release does not count towards the total period of sentence while when he is on furlough he is eligible to have the period of release counted towards the total period of his sentence undergone by him. Delhi Jail Manual also uses the same terminology which we may set out as under :-

17. Chapter XX of the Punjab Jail Manual as applicable in the State of Haryana contains remission system. Paras 633, 633-A, 635, 637, 644 and 645 are relevant for our purpose which we set out hereunder :-

"633. Cases in which ordinary remission not earned. - No ordinary remission shall be earned in the following cases, namely :-

18. When a circular specifically applies to the prisoners who are undergoing sentence and are confined in jail and even to those who are on parole or furlough we cannot extend this circular to convicts who are on bail and thus carve out another category to which Court is not entitled under Section 432 of the Code. As noted above, validity of the circular has not been challenged on any other ground.

19. In the case of Harphool Singh, who was convicted of rape, circular specifically is not applicable to the prisoner convicted of an offence of rape or other dowry offences. Perhaps, this provision was not brought to the notice of the High Court when it held that circular would also apply in the case of Harphool Singh. It was submitted by Mr. Dayan Krishan, learned amicus curiae that nevertheless Harphool Singh might have already undergone the sentence after earning remission under the Punjab Jail Manual and present appeal in his case would be infructuous. It will be for the State Government to consider, if Harphool Singh has served out his sentence in normal course without getting any remission under the circular on the basis of the impugned judgment of the High Court. It is not disputed that Harphool Singh has already got benefit of remission to which he was entitled under Chapter XX of the Punjab Jail Manual. He is certainly not entitled to remission under the circular as that is not applicable to a person convicted of an offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code.

20. From para 637 as reproduced above a convict on bail is not entitled to the benefit of remission system. In fact question is no longer res integra as it is covered by the decision of this Court in Jai Prakash and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1987(4) SCC 296. While considering the scope of para 637 this Court held :-

21. In the appeals where the convicts were on bail High Court in the impugned judgments relied on a decision of this Court in Nalamolu Appala Swamy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 192 where this Court observed as under :-

22. Decision of this Court in the case of Nalamolu Appala Swamy aforesaid, however turns on the facts of that case. The GO which granted remission has not been set out in the judgment though the judgment noticed that GO has been issued by the Government for granting remission to certain categories of prisoners "to commemorate the occasion of the anniversary of formation of the Andhra Pradesh State on November 1, 1984 and the restoration of democratic rule in the State". The Court also noticed the argument of the appellants that GO nowhere sets out that benefit of remission would be confined to prisoners who were actually in jail on the date of the GO and not to others who were on bail.

23. We are of the opinion that the High Court was not right in the judgments impugned in these appeals holding that the respondents were entitled to remission of their sentences under the circulars in question issued under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These appeals are, therefore, allowed and the impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside.

24. We place on record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered to us by Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Advocate who appeared as amicus curiae.

Appeals allowed.