Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 944 (PNJ)

Bijender Son Of Kitab Singh v. State Of Haryana

2002-09-19

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order bearing No. 4721 G.I./G.5 dated 11-2-2002 of the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh, communicated by the Superintendent, District Jail, Sonepat to the petitioner whereby his prayer for agricultural parole had been rejected. 2. Bijender, petitioner is undergoing life sentence in pursuance to the judgment dated 19-7-2001 and is presently confined in District Jail, Sonepat. He had moved the authorities for being released on agricultural parole in order to help his father in cultivation of his land. It was also stated by him that father of the petitioner was also undergoing life imprisonment and is confined in District Jail, sonepat. The Gram Panchayat of Village Mandlana, Tehsil Gohana had also supported the case of the petitioner because he and his father were dependent for their livelihood on agriculture. The certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat (Annexure-P. 2) has been placed on record in support of the stand taken by him besides the extract of the Jamabandi for the year 1996-97 which indicates that Hari Singh son of Partap Singh is a co-sharer in the land jointly owned by him and his brother as well as other persons named therein. 3. In pursuance to the notice given to the respondents, written reply has been filed by Hawa Singh Hooda, Superintendent, District Jail, Sone pat on behalf of the respondents. While opposing the stand of the petitioner it has been stated therein that the agricultural parole case of the petitioner was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Sonepat, who found that the petitioner did not own agricultural land and for that reason his case was not recommended by him. Taking into consideration the said report, the prayer made by the petitioner was rejected vide communication Annexure-P.1 which was fully justified under the circumstances of the case. 4. I heard counsel for the petitioner and State counsel at length. 5. The primary submission made by the counsel for the petitioner while seeking quashing of the order Annexure-P. 1 is that merely because the petitioner does not own any agricultural land in his own name in the village is no ground to deny the claim of the petitioner for agricultural parole to him because admittedly, father of the petitioner is a co-sharer along with his brothers etc. and that land is jointly owned by them and the petitioner is required to render necessary assistance in cultivating the same. In support of the stand taken reliance was placed on the observations made in Ram Kumar V/s. The State of Haryana, 1999 4 RCC 519, wherein the petitioner, who was son of an agriculturist was granted parole on the ground that he could assist his father in the agricultural pursuits. 6. Opposing the submissions made, it was contended by the State Counsel that the case of the petitioner was not covered within the ambit of Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for that reason the petitioner is not entitled to parole as claimed by him in the petition. It was further submitted by him that it is manifest from the judgment referred to that attention of the Court was not specifically invited to the aforesaid provisions and for that reason no assistance can be had by the petitioner on the basis of the observations made in the above mentioned case as the same was decided on facts only. 7. In order to appreciate the respective stands taken by the parties it is essential to notice the requirement of Section 3 of the Act which so far relevant reads as under :- "3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds :- (1) The State may, in consultation with the District Magistrate or any other officer appointed in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section (2), any prisoner, if the State Government is satisfied that :- (a) to (b) xx xx xx xx xx (c) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation on his land or his fathers undivided land actually in possession the prisoner; or (d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. xx xx xx xx" 8. Bare reading of the above stated provision contained in Section 3(1)(c) of the Act would show that two conditions are required to be fulfilled by the prisoner who wants his temporary release for the period specified in sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. xx xx xx xx" 8. Bare reading of the above stated provision contained in Section 3(1)(c) of the Act would show that two conditions are required to be fulfilled by the prisoner who wants his temporary release for the period specified in sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. Firstly, that the release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying out any other agricultural operation on his land. Secondly, that for the said purpose he can be released if he has been in possession of his fathers undivided land. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner does not own land and was not in possession of his fathers undivided land. The statutory requirements are not fulfilled by the petitioner in this case. 9. While interpreting the provisions of the statute, one has to keep in mind the observations made by the Apex court in Reserve Bank of India V/s. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited, AIR 1987 SC 1023, wherein it was observed as under :- "Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the basis of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. 10. In other case the Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (P) Ltd. V/s. The Chief Inspector of Stamps, U.P. AIR 1968 SC 102, it was observed by the Apex Court that a statute is an edict of the legislature and the conventional way of interpreting or construing a statute is to seek the intention of its maker. Salmond in his book jurisprudence (11th edition, page 152) had observed that the duty of judicature is to act upon the true intention of the legislature - the mens or sententia legis. 11. In the present case, the Legislature in its wisdom has chosen to categorise and confine the benefit of parole in two situations noticed above. Ignoring the above requirements would tantamount to ignore the mandate of law. The case of the petitioner manifestly, does not fall within the above two parameters. That being so, the benefit of parole as such cannot be granted to him under the circumstances of the case. Ignoring the above requirements would tantamount to ignore the mandate of law. The case of the petitioner manifestly, does not fall within the above two parameters. That being so, the benefit of parole as such cannot be granted to him under the circumstances of the case. The observations made in the above mentioned case in view of the decision explained above would not render any assistance to the petitioner in this regard. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the petition and consequently, the same is dismissed.