Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Supreme Court Rules Parole Period Not Counted Towards Total Sentence

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that the period of parole should not be included when calculating the total sentence of a convict. The decision was rendered in the case of Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana, wherein the petitioner sought the quashing of a decision by the High-Powered Committee regarding the counting of the parole period towards his sentence.

The petitioner, who had been convicted for offenses under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, was released on emergency parole by the High-Powered Committee in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Committee later decided that the period of release on interim parole would not be considered in the calculation of the petitioner's sentence.

Rejecting the petitioner's plea, the Supreme Court emphasized the legality of this decision, stating, "The period of release on parole shall not be counted towards the total period of sentence of a convict-prisoner." The court referred to the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, which expressly excludes the parole period from the calculation of the sentence.

The court further relied on previous judgments to support its ruling. It cited the case of Avtar Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 18, where the constitutional validity of Section 3(3) of the Act, 1988, was upheld. Additionally, the court cited State of Haryana & Ors. v. Mohinder Singh (2000) 3 SCC 394, wherein it was held that the period of parole should not be counted towards the total sentence.

Justice M.R. Shah, delivering the judgment, stated, "For the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded." The court recognized that including the parole period in the calculation could undermine the purpose and effectiveness of the actual imprisonment.

Apex court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, affirming that the parole period would not be counted towards the total sentence. This ruling sets a precedent regarding the calculation of sentences for convicts on parole, reinforcing the statutory provisions and previous judgments on the matter.

Date Of Decision 24 March 2023

Anil Kumar   vs State of Haryana & Ors. 

                                                                    

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/24-Mar-2023-Anil-Kumar-Vs-State-Supreme-Court.pdf"]

Latest Legal News