LAWS(RAJ)-2009-4-169

SUKHMINDER KAUR Vs. STATE

Decided On April 09, 2009
Sukhminder Kaur Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for issuance of direction, in the nature of habeas corpus, has been filed by the petitioner, whose husband is undergoing sentence.

(2.) The facts of the case are, that petitioner's husband, hereafter referred to as 'the accused', was convicted by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1., Sri Ganganagar by judgment dated 15.10.2004, in Sessions Case No. 37/1993, for the offences under Sections 8/21 and 8/23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 lakh, in default to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 8/21, and with rigorous imprisonment for another term of 20 years with a fine of Rs. 2 lakh, in default to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 8/23. This judgment was challenged by the accused by way of S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1111/2004, before this Court, which was decided vide judgment dated 23.7.2008, and thereby the substantive sentences for both the offences were reduced to 10 years on each of the counts. However, the sentences of fine, and the sentences of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine were maintained. Admittedly these convictions and sentences have become final.

(3.) The case of the petitioner then is, that as on the date of the filing of the petition, he has undergone about 11 years and one month judicial custody, and that since all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and since the substantive sentences ran concurrently, after completion of the period of 10 years, the substantive sentences came to an end. With this it is contended, that the accused has completed further one year's rigorous imprisonment also in default of payment of fine, and since all the sentences were made to run concurrently, the accused was entitled to be set at liberty after completion of said one year's rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine, but he has not been released. Thus, his detention is illegal. The case of the petitioner further is, that he has orally been given out, that as he has been awarded one year's rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine for two offences, those sentences of imprisonment he has to suffer one after another, while according to the petitioner, since there was only one warrant, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, the stand of the jail authority is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.