Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.1059 OF2014DECIDED ON : 14.08.2014 Bhim Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present : Mr.R.S.Bains, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana.K.C.
PURI, J.
(ORAL) This is a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Habeas Corpurs for production and release of Bhim Singh, who has already completed his sentence of 16 months as per the High Court order in Crl.
Revision No.383 of 2013 and Criminal Revision No.384 of 2013 decided on 17.01.2014.
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in two cases in which identical sentences of 6 months was passed.
In default of payment of compensation further sentence of 5 months was passed in both the cases.
The petitioner preferred two criminal revision petitions against the order and conviction and they were decided by this Court by common order on 17.01.2014.
Both the revision petitions ANJU201408.14 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP No.1059 OF2014-2- i.e.Crl.
Revision No.383 of 2013 and Criminal Revision No.384 of 2013 were dismissed.
However, this Court had directed that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner shall run concurrently in view of Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
As per reply filed by the State, the petitioner was admitted to the prison on 06.11.2012.
According to the petitioner, he can remain in custody for a period of 16 months i.e.6 months in respect of substantive sentence of two revision petitions which have been ordered to run concurrently and 5 months for each case in case of default.
According to the petitioner, he should have been released after 16 months.
However, the State has filed reply in which it is mentioned that in case bearing No.14998 of 2007 under Section 138 r/w Section 141 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, he was sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months and to pay compensation of Rs.22,72,500/-and in default of 5 months and the aforesaid convict was released in the said case on 05.05.2013 on expiry of sentence but was detained in another case.
It was further mentioned that in case bearing No.14534 of 2007 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act etc.He was sentenced for 6 months and to pay a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- and in default of 5 months and sentenced in that case was started on 05.05.2013 and the aforesaid convict was released in the said case on 05.11.2013 but was detained in lieu of the compensation amount.
It is further ANJU201408.14 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP No.1059 OF2014-3- mentioned that the petitioner was released on 05.04.2014 on expiry of sentence in lieu of compensation in case No.14998 of 2007.
The sentence of 5 months simple imprisonment in lieu of compensation in case No.14534 of 2007 has started on 05.04.2014.
The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner carries weight.
This Court in CRR No.384 of 2013 and CRR No.383 of 2013 both decided on 17.01.2014 has ordered that substantive sentences in both the cases shall run concurrently.
So, in these circumstances, the petitioner has to undergo substantive sentence of 6 months and in default of compensation he has to further undergo 5 months in each case.
The total period in this manner comes to 16 months.
It is not disputed during the couRs.of arguments that the petitioner was never released after his arrest.
So in these circumstances, the petition stands accepted.
The petitioner is ordered to be released in both the petitions mentioned above after completion of 16 months sentence in all.
He be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
The order be conveyed to the concerned quarter.
August 14, 2014 (K.C.PURI) anju JUDGE ANJU201408.14 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document