Latest news with #SessionsCourt
Indian Express
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
HC strikes down Punjab formula for premature release of prisoners
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that parole must be deducted from the total sentence, including remission, and not from the actual sentence, which covers only the time spent in custody while considering eligibility for premature release of prisoners. Setting aside the Punjab government's October 2024 order denying life convict Rupinder Singh's release, the court directed a fresh assessment of his case within four weeks. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, who delivered the ruling on May 29, also struck down the state's 2020 formula that excluded parole from the actual sentence. 'The formula prescribed in meeting dated 16.07.2020 is held to be invalid, being in direct contravention of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1962… It is directed that the parole period shall only be subtracted from the total sentence and not from the actual sentence,' the court said. The court found the state's formula—actual custody during undertrial plus custody post-conviction, minus the parole period—lacked legal backing and contradicted the Punjab Good Conduct of Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. Section 3(3) of the Act states: 'The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner.' Interpreting this, Justice Brar clarified, 'Actual sentence must be interpreted to mean the real time spent by a prisoner behind bars. and therefore, has two parts only i.e. (i) Actual time undergone in custody as an undertrial and (ii) Actual time undergone as a convict. Thus, the quantum of actual sentence is a matter of fact, a constant number…Total sentence, for the purpose of premature release, would include the actual sentence undergone by the prisoner and the remission earned by him.' The court held that Singh's case must be considered under the 1991 premature release policy, which requires 10 years of actual imprisonment and 14 years, including remission. Citing Raj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024(9) SCC 598, the court said, 'The State having formulated Rules and a Standing Policy for deciding cases of premature release, it is bound by its own formulations of law… It must strictly abide by the terms of its policies bearing in mind the fundamental principle of law that each case for premature release has to be decided on the basis of the legal position as it stands on the date of the conviction.' The court also referred to Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2002 SCC (Cri.) 504, noting, 'Ordinarily, the period of temporary release of a prisoner on parole needs to be counted towards the total period of detention, but this condition can be curtailed by legislative act, rules, instructions or terms of the grant of parole.' As no such legal change had been made, the court said Section 3(3) remained applicable. Rupinder Singh was convicted of murder on August 11, 2014, by the Sessions Court in Hoshiarpur under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. His conviction was upheld by the high court on October 3, 2019, and by the Supreme Court on November 22, 2019. Seeking premature release under the 1991 policy, Singh's case was considered by the court on January 16, 2024. The state later challenged this, and on March 24, 2025, the Supreme Court allowed it to file a review petition. The key issue was whether over three years of Singh's parole should be deducted from his actual time served or from the total sentence. The state's 2020 clarification favoured the former, delaying his eligibility. Singh's lawyers, Nandan Jindal and Tushar Sabherwal, argued that the 2020 clarification was applied retrospectively and violated constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. They cited Jai Kishan @ Bhola vs. State of Punjab (2022) and Baljeet Singh @ Rangi vs. State of Punjab (2022). Deputy Advocate General Pardeep Bajaj, appearing for the state, relied on Rohan Dhungat vs. State of Goa (2023 AIR SC 265), but the court held it was not applicable due to differences in state laws. Justice Brar noted, 'The objective behind the Act of 1962 is humanitarian in nature… Ensuring that the incarcerated have healthy roots in the society greatly assists in their rehabilitation and reintegration.'
The Star
a day ago
- The Star
Ex-MMEA director jailed for accepting RM10,000 bribe
JOHOR BARU: A former Tanjung Sedili Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) director has been sentenced to 20 months' jail for accepting a RM10,000 bribe some five years ago. Sessions Court judge Datuk Ahmad Kamal Arifin Ismail handed down the sentence, effective immediately, after finding that the prosecution had proven its case against Mohd Zulfadli Nayan, 44. 'After hearing and weighing all the evidence, the court finds that the accused has failed to raise reasonable doubt against the prosecution's case,' he said yesterday. The case was prosecuted by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission deputy public prosecutor Zander Lim Wai Keong while lawyer Mohd Fazaly Ali Mohd Ghazali represented the accused. Earlier during mitigation, Mohd Fazaly Ali asked the court to impose punishment in the form of fines. He said if the court were to impose a jail sentence, it should be at the minimum, citing Mohd Zulfadli's health issues including gout, chronic migraine and gastric problems that require ongoing medication. 'My client currently works as an e-hailing driver and wireman, earning between RM2,000 and RM3,000 per month to support his family, which includes four children, aged between three and 11,' he said. Meanwhile, Lim urged the court to impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence. 'As a senior federal officer, the accused was responsible for upholding the law and ensuring maritime safety. 'However, he instead accepted a bribe from a shipping agent, which is clearly against his duties and this has tarnished the image of MMEA,' he said. Following the sentencing, Mohd Fazaly Ali applied for a stay but the court rejected the application. On May 23, 2021, the accused contested the charge under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which carries a jail term of up to two years, a fine or both. According to the charge sheet, he accepted the money from the shipping company owner at a restaurant in Jalan Yahya Awal on Oct 2, 2020. He was accused of using his position to avoid taking action in the investigation of a vessel owned by the company, which was detained by Tanjung Sedili MMEA on Sept 17, 2020.
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Cop sentenced to life imprisonment for murder
The Sessions Court sentenced a constable of the Punjab Highway Patrol Police who killed a citi-zen to life imprisonment and a compensation of Rs500,000 while giving the benefit of doubt to the three accomplices of the criminal and acquitted them. Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Owais sentenced Punjab Highway Patrol Police consta-ble Usman Hameed, involved in the murder case of Dijkot police station, to life imprisonment and a compensation of Rs500,000. The court has given the order that the convict will have to undergo an additional one-year imprisonment in case of non-payment of compensation. The court has acquitted the convict's three accom-plices, Assistant Sub-Inspector Shahid Manzoor, Con-stable Ghulam Dastgir and Mohsin Sufiyan, giving them the benefit of doubt.
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
High court strikes down Punjab formula for premature release of prisoners
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that parole must be deducted from the total sentence, including remission, and not from the actual sentence, which covers only the time spent in custody while considering eligibility for premature release of prisoners. Setting aside the Punjab government's October 2024 order denying life convict Rupinder Singh's release, the court directed a fresh assessment of his case within four weeks. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, who delivered the ruling on May 29, also struck down the state's 2020 formula that excluded parole from the actual sentence. 'The formula prescribed in meeting dated 16.07.2020 is held to be invalid, being in direct contravention of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1962… It is directed that the parole period shall only be subtracted from the total sentence and not from the actual sentence,' the court said. The court found the state's formula—actual custody during undertrial plus custody post-conviction, minus the parole period—lacked legal backing and contradicted the Punjab Good Conduct of Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. Section 3(3) of the Act states: 'The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner.' Interpreting this, Justice Brar clarified, 'Actual sentence must be interpreted to mean the real time spent by a prisoner behind bars. and therefore, has two parts only i.e. (i) Actual time undergone in custody as an undertrial and (ii) Actual time undergone as a convict. Thus, the quantum of actual sentence is a matter of fact, a constant number…Total sentence, for the purpose of premature release, would include the actual sentence undergone by the prisoner and the remission earned by him.' The court held that Singh's case must be considered under the 1991 premature release policy, which requires 10 years of actual imprisonment and 14 years, including remission. Citing Raj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024(9) SCC 598, the court said, 'The State having formulated Rules and a Standing Policy for deciding cases of premature release, it is bound by its own formulations of law… It must strictly abide by the terms of its policies bearing in mind the fundamental principle of law that each case for premature release has to be decided on the basis of the legal position as it stands on the date of the conviction.' The court also referred to Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2002 SCC (Cri.) 504, noting, 'Ordinarily, the period of temporary release of a prisoner on parole needs to be counted towards the total period of detention, but this condition can be curtailed by legislative act, rules, instructions or terms of the grant of parole.' As no such legal change had been made, the court said Section 3(3) remained applicable. Rupinder Singh was convicted of murder on August 11, 2014, by the Sessions Court in Hoshiarpur under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. His conviction was upheld by the high court on October 3, 2019, and by the Supreme Court on November 22, 2019. Seeking premature release under the 1991 policy, Singh's case was considered by the court on January 16, 2024. The state later challenged this, and on March 24, 2025, the Supreme Court allowed it to file a review petition. The key issue was whether over three years of Singh's parole should be deducted from his actual time served or from the total sentence. The state's 2020 clarification favoured the former, delaying his eligibility. Singh's lawyers, Nandan Jindal and Tushar Sabherwal, argued that the 2020 clarification was applied retrospectively and violated constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. They cited Jai Kishan @ Bhola vs. State of Punjab (2022) and Baljeet Singh @ Rangi vs. State of Punjab (2022). Deputy Advocate General Pardeep Bajaj, appearing for the state, relied on Rohan Dhungat vs. State of Goa (2023 AIR SC 265), but the court held it was not applicable due to differences in state laws. Justice Brar noted, 'The objective behind the Act of 1962 is humanitarian in nature… Ensuring that the incarcerated have healthy roots in the society greatly assists in their rehabilitation and reintegration.'
New Straits Times
2 days ago
- New Straits Times
Ex-MMEA director jailed 20 months for accepting RM10,000 bribe
JOHOR BARU: A former Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) director was today sentenced to 20 months in prison by the Sessions Court here for accepting a RM10,000 bribe five years ago. Judge Datuk Ahmad Kamal Arifin Ismail found Mohd Zulfadli Nayan, 44, guilty after ruling that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt at the end of the defence stage. "After hearing and considering all the evidence, the court is of the view that the accused has failed to raise a reasonable doubt against the prosecution's case. "The court therefore finds the accused guilty and convicts him of the charge," he said, ordering Mohd Zulfadli to begin serving his sentence today. Lawyer Mohd Fazaly Ali Mohd Ghazaly, representing Mohd Zulfadli, formerly Tanjung Sedili Maritime Zone MMEA director, requested for a stay of the execution of the jail sentence, but it was dismissed. Earlier, during mitigation, the lawyer requested the court to impose a fine on his client, who has four children aged three to 11 to support. He said Mohd Zulfadli was suspended from work as senior assistant director of the International Relations and Coordination Branch at the MMEA Headquarters on May 23, 2021, and had since been working as an e-hailing driver and taking an electrical wiring job, earning between RM2,000 and RM3,000 a month. "He also suffers from gout, serious migraines and gastritis for which he has to take his medication regularly," said the lawyer. Deputy public prosecutor Zander Lim Wai Keong, from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), prosecuted. On May 23, 2021, Mohd Zulfadli claimed trial on a charge of accepting a cash bribe of RM10,000 from a shipping company owner, Wan Mohd Fauzi Wan Kamaruddin, at a restaurant in Jalan Yahya Awal here at 10 pm on Oct 2, 2020. He was alleged to have used his position at the time to refrain from taking action in an investigation involving the vessel MT 'Singa Gangsa', owned by Alamgala Resources Sdn Bhd. The ship was detained by 'KM Mulia' of the MMEA's Tanjung Sedili Maritime Zone on Sept 17, 2020. He was charged under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which carries a jail sentence of up to two years, a fine or both upon conviction.
