Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1308 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-11-03

S.S.NIJJAR

body2000
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. Notice of motion to A.G. Punjab. Mr. R.P.S. Athwal, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State of Punjab. Copy of the petition furnished to him. Heard forthwith. 2. This petition seeks the release of the petitioner on parole under Section 3(1)(b)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner seeks release on parole in order to attend the marriage of the daughter of the petitioners widowed sister which has been fixed for 11.11.2000. There is no other male member in the family of the sister of the petitioner who can perform the Kanya Dan. An application was submitted by the sister of the petitioner requesting the jail authorities for the release of the petitioner. It has been stated that the marriage cannot possibly take place without the participation of the petitioner. This application has been endorsed by the Panchayat of Sukhera Bodla. The petitioner was the only male member who was supporting the widowed sister and her family financially. As proof of the fact that marriage has been arranged, wedding card has been attached with the petition. The application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision for parole for convicts who are serving the sentence for having committed an offence under the NDPS Act. This view was taken by the jail authorities on the basis of a judgment of the Supreme Court given in Crl. Appeal Nos. 632, 633, 634 and 635 of 2000 dated 4.8.2000. Following the aforesaid judgment, this Court had also taken a similar view in Crl. Misc. No. 26125-M of 2000. The petitioner therein was permitted to be escorted to attend the marriage ceremony of his daughter under the surveillance of the police. 3. Mr. R.P.S. Athwal appearing for the State of Punjab has very fairly brought to the notice of this Court a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dadu @ Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra, 2000(4) RCR(Criminal) 275 wherein Section 32-A of the NDPS Act so far it ousts the jurisdiction of Court to suspend the sentence, has been declared to be unconstitutional. In the same judgment, while considering the provisions of the Act, it has been held that release of a convict on parole is not suspension, remission or commutation of sentence. In the same judgment, while considering the provisions of the Act, it has been held that release of a convict on parole is not suspension, remission or commutation of sentence. It is held that convict continues to be serving the sentence despite the grant of parole. In paragraph 6, it is held as follows :- "6. Parole is not a suspension of the sentence. The convict continues to be serving the sentence despite granting of parole under the Statute, Rules, Jail Manual or the Government Orders. "Parole" means the release of a prisoner temporarily for a special purpose before the expiry of a sentence, on the promise of good behaviour and return to jail. It is a release from jail, prison or other internment after actually been in jail serving part of sentence." 4. The Court has further observed in paragraph 11 that parole did not amount to the suspension, remission or commutation of sentence which could be withheld under the garb of Section 32-A of the Act. Notwithstanding the provisions of the offending section, a convict is entitled to parole, subject, however, to the conditions governing the grant of it under the statute, if any, or the Jail Manual or the Government Instructions. 5. As noticed earlier, the application for grant of parole of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that parole cannot be granted to a convict who is serving a sentence for an offence under the NDPS Act. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dadu @ Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra (supra), the petitioner is clearly entitled to parole subject to his being eligible under the provisions for grant of parole. 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on parole subject to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Ferozepur for a period of 14 days to run from the date the petitioner is released on parole. 7. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of Special Secretary of this Court. Petition allowed.