Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The learned Counsel appearing f or the State relied upon Poonam Lata v. M. L. Wadhawan , wherein it was held that when a person is detained under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, the period for which he was released on parole has to be excluded in reckoning the period of detention. This judgment is not relevant to the instant case because it relates to preventive detention. It was observed in the judgment itself that there is no denying of the fact that preventive detention is not punishment and the concept of serving out a sentence would not legitimately be within the purview of preventive detention. It is explained that parole has become an integral part of the English and American systems of criminal justice intertwined with the evolution of changing attitudes of the society towards crime and criminals. It is a provisional release from confinement but is deemed to be a part of the imprisonment. Parole is thus a grant of partial liberty or lessening of restrictions on a convict prisoner, but release on parole does not change the status of the prisoner. Preventive detention stands on a different footing. It is held by the Supreme Court that in cases of preventive detention the period for which a detenu is detained does not tantamount to imprisonment. The Court has no power to substitute the period of detention either by abridging or enlarging it. The only power that is available to the Court is to quash the order in case it is found to be illegal. That being so it would not be open to the Court to reduce the period of detention by admitting the detenu on parole. Preventive detention jurisprudence in this regard is very different from regular conviction followed by sentence that an accused is to suffer. Thus, the judgment relied upon by the learned State counsel is not an adequate reply to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Maru Ram (supra).