STATE OF HARYANA versus NAURATTA SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 246 · Decided: 10-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
STAIB OF HARYANA 
v. 
NAURATTA SINGH AND ORS. 
MARCH 10, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPA1RA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Sections 428, 432, 433-A. 
Sentence-Remission of-Instructions issued by Govt. of Haryana-
Applicahility of 
. 
Accused-Conviction for murder-life imprisonment-Period during. 
which accused remained on bail under orders of Court-Accused held not 
entitled to remission in respect of the said period. 
The respondent was an accused in a murder trial along with three 
others. By its judgment dated 5.1.1978 the Trial Court acquitted him of the 
offence under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code, but 
convicted him under section 324 and sentenced him to the period of impris-
onment already undergone. State preferred appeal before High Court 
which by its judgment dated 23.4.1980 convicted the respondent under 
section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him 
to imprisonment for life. During the pendency of said appeal respondent 
was on bail. However, pursuant to the judgment of the High Court he 
surrendered to the bail on 7 .6.1980. During pendency of appeal before this 
Court also he was released on bail as per order dated 2.8.1980. On 
dismissal of his appeal by this Court he was again taken back .to jail on 
22.8.1994. Thereafter, he approached the High Court praying that his 
conviction must be treated as passed on 5.1.1978 i.e. the date on which the 
Trial Court passed its judgment and hence the period during which he was 
on bail shall be included within the period of his entitlement for remission. 
His claim was based on the instructions issued by the Government of 
Haryana which provides, ''Remission will be also granted to all the con-
victs who were on parole/furlough from the jail on 25.1.1988 subject to the 
condition that they surrender at the jail on the due date after the expiry of 
parole/furlough period for undergoing the on-expired portions of their 
H 
sentences." 
246 
STATE v. NAURATTA SINGH 
247 
Relying on two judgments* Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana 
A 
High Court directed that respondent be granted remission in respect of 
the period during which he was on bail. The contention of the appellant-
State that the interdict contained in section 433-A of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure was not applicable to the case was rejected by the High Court. 
In State's appeal to this Court on the question whether the respond-
ent-accused is entitled to remission of the period during which he was on 
bail under orders of the Court : 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD 1. That part of the impugned judgment by which the Single 
Judge directed remission to be granted in respect of the period during 
which respondent was released on bail is set aside. [254-E] 
2. The instructions issued by the Government of Haryana under 
which respondent claimed remission ca~ot be interpreted as to enable 
him to count the period during which he was on bail towards remission. 
The expression "parole or furlough'' in the instructions cannot, for obvi-
ous reasons be stretched to the period during which the person was 
enlarged on bail, during the pendency of the trial or appeal or revision. It 
must be remembered that no sentence would be passed on the accused 
during the time he remains under trial and hence there is no question of 
any remission to be granted to him during that stage, except the period 
during which he was under detention as provided in section 428 of the 
Code. If he was released on bail during the pendency of appeal or revision 
it is on account of the fact that the court suspended the sentence passed on 
him. When the sentence stands suspended he would be released on bail oµ 
· his own entitlement. But the case of parole or furlough is different from 
the above. (252-B-E] 
3. Suspension of a sentence is obviously different from remission of 
any part of the punishment to which a person is sentenced. While Section 
432 of the Code deals with power of ·the Government to suspend the 
sentence, section 389 of the Code deals with power of the court to suspend 
execution of sentence pending appeal or revision. Whenever the sentence 
is suspended by the court the convict is entitled to be released on bail. The 
expression used in section 432(1) of the Code for remission is ''remit the 
punishment to which he has been sentenced". It is, therefore, clear that 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.