Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rabinder Singh vs Uoi Etc on 22 December, 2014
Author: K.Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.14880 of 2001 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.12.2014
Rabinder Singh ... Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present :- None for the petitioner.
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate,
for Union of India.
----
K.Kannan, J.
1. The petition is for release of the petitioner who was held in confinement. It bears from the records that he has since been released. The averment is that a death sentence, which was commuted to life, must mean sentence for 14 years only and even when the petition was filed, he had been kept in confinement for 14 years 7 months and more.
2. Though it is surely a doubtful proposition for a person to define that a life sentence must always be confined to 14 years and the incarceration exceeding the said period must be taken as illegal, I am not prepared to go into the merits of such a plea since the petitioner has remained absent without representation although the SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.12.22 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.14880 of 2001 (O&M) -2- case is posted in the list for final hearing.
3. The writ petition is dismissed for default.
4. If ever there is an application for restoration filed, it is appropriate that the petitioner or any counsel that may appear would address himself to the relevant provisions of the Punjab Jail Manual that defines a life convict to mean of 20 or 25 years of imprisonment and the law that abounds on this subject commencing from Gopal Godse Versus State of Maharashtra-AIR 1961 SC 600, Maru Ram Versus Union of India-1981(1) SCC 107 and Ashok Kumar Versus Union of India-1991 (3) SCC 498.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22.12.2014 sanjeev/rimpal SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.12.22 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document