R.R.K.TRIVEDI, J., M.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) Habeas Corpus Petition No. 38968 of 1998 was registered on the basis of letter sent by Smt. Vimla Devi wife of Jai Chand Singh whereas Habeas Corpus Petition No. 10757 of 1999 was registered on the basis of letter sent by Jai Chand Singh from Jail. The questions of fact and law involved in both the petitions are similar and they are consequently, disposed of by this common order.
(2.) The facts giving rise to these petitioners are that the petitioner Jai Chand Singh was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment by the judgement and order dated 1-7-1981 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in S.T.No. 531 of 1980 under S.302/34/154/138/149 IPC. The aforesaid order was challenged in Criminal Appeal in this Court which was dismissed on 5/11/1982. The petitioner's claim is that he had already served out 25 years of sentence before 26/01/1999 and he ought to have been released from jail, like other convicts on the basis of the government orders. In this connection, the petitioner has claimed that he was in jail as under trial from 4-7-1980 to 1-7-1981, i.e., for a period of eleven months twenty seven days, which ought to have been set off under S. 428 Cr.P.C. and if this total period is given set off, the petitioner completed 25 years' sentence much before 26-1-1999. He has also pleaded that the period, during which he was released on parole before conviction, has been illegally excluded. Such period was three months. It is claimed that the respondents have illegally denied the benefit of the Government Orders to the petitioner.
(3.) The counter affidavit has been filed in both petitions. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that on 26-1-1999 the petitioner had served only 24 years 10 months of the sentence including remissions and he was not entitled for release. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that before conviction, he was in actual detention as under trail for a period of 8 months 20 days, which could only be given set off under S. 428 Cr.P.C. It has also been stated that after conviction the petitioner was not granted either parole or licence at any point of time.;