Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1570 (PNJ)

Kulwant Singh v. State Of Punjab

2003-11-18

M.M.KUMAR

body2003
Judgment 1. This petition filed by a life convict under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, Cr.P.C.) read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution prays for issuance of an order or direction to the respondents for his temporary release for a period of six weeks under Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for brevity, the Act) and the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1963 (for brevity, the Rules). 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the question raised in the present petition are that the petitioner was convicted on 16-1-2003 under Section 302 read with Section 201, IPC in case FIR No. 128 of 2001 registered at Police Station Khalra. He has been awarded, sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 302, IPC. He has further been awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Pis. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 201, IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. A copy of the order in Sessions Case No. 28 of 2002, decided on 16-1-2003, in respect of FIR No. 128 of 2001 registered under Sections 302/201 /34, IPC, Police Station Khalra has been placed on record. It is claimed that the petitioner has been continuously confined and has undergone approximately two years by including the undertrial period. It is asserted that the petitioner had earned remissions granted by the State Government under Article 161 of the Constitution and the provisions of Punjab Jail Manual. The family of the petitioner approached the Gram Panchayat for his release which recommended his case to the Jail authorities. It was certified that the land of the petitioner is worth agricultural operations and there is no male member of the family to lookafter the land. The release of the petitioner for maximum period was recommended along with the opinion that with his release there would be no breach of peace. The petitioner made an application before the Superintendent Central Jail, Amritsar along with the documents like certificate of the Panchayat and the Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000. The release of the petitioner for maximum period was recommended along with the opinion that with his release there would be no breach of peace. The petitioner made an application before the Superintendent Central Jail, Amritsar along with the documents like certificate of the Panchayat and the Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar forwarded the case of the petitioner for his temporary release to the competent authority on 2-4-2003. However, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab on the ground that release of the petitioner would result into breach of peace and law and order. The order dated 2-7-2003 has been annexed with the reply and the same reads as under : "From The District Magistrate, Amritsar. To The Additional Director General of Prisons, Department of Jail, Punjab, Chandigarh. No. Reader/D.M. 2083 dated 2-3-2003 (sic ? 2-7-2003) Sub : Regarding the release on parole of convict Kulwant Singh s/o Sukhdev Singh R/o Bhandal, P. S. Khalara. Memo letter, The parole case of the convict Kulwant Singh s/o Sukhdev Singh was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Taran Tarn for inquiry and report. He has stated in his report that on the release on parole of the convict, there is a apprehension of breach of peace and law and order. So the release of convict on parole is not recommended. I agree with the report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Taran Tarn, the parole case of the convict Kulwant Singh s/o Sukhdev Singh is not recommended.The original documents are herewith attached. Sd/- D.M. Amritsar." 3. Notice of the petition was issued and the stand taken in paragraph 5 of the written statement is that the District Magistrate in his order dated 2-7-2003 did not recommend the case of the petitioner for parole on the ground that his release is likely to result into breach of peace and the problem of law and order. As the recommendations of the District Magistrate were required, the request made by the petitioner was rejected by Director General of Police, Prisons, Pun- Jab, Chandigarh on 11-9-2003 and intimation was sent to the petitioner. However, the averments that his conduct was found to be good by the Jail authorities has been accepted. 4. Mr. As the recommendations of the District Magistrate were required, the request made by the petitioner was rejected by Director General of Police, Prisons, Pun- Jab, Chandigarh on 11-9-2003 and intimation was sent to the petitioner. However, the averments that his conduct was found to be good by the Jail authorities has been accepted. 4. Mr. Vijay K. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under Sections 3(i)(c) of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to be released on parole for agriculture operations. According to the learned counsel, the only prohibition imposed by Section 6 of the Act is that request of the convict could be declined if his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order. The learned counsel has stressed that the aforementioned provision has come up for consideration before this Court and the interpretation given by this Court in various judgments is that the expression security of State or maintenance of public order has to be understood in the same manner as it has been interpreted by various judgments of the Supreme Court while interpreting Article 19(2) of the Constitution. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Joginder Singh V/s. State of Punjab, (1988) 2 Rec Cri R 548. He has also relied on subsequent judgments of this Court in the cases of Jai Ram V/s. State of Punjab, (2001) 2 Rec Cri R 158; Mohinder Singh V/s. State of Haryana, (2001)1 Rec Cri R 239; Ajmer Singh V/s. State of Punjab, (1996) 3 Rec Cri R 716 and Mehboob V/s. The State of Punjab through Director General of Prisons, Haryana, 2002 (4) Rec Cri R 463. 5. Mrs. Baljit K. Mann, learned State counsel has argued that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by sub-section (ii) of Section 6 of the Act and the order dated 11-9-2003 passed by the Director General of Police, Prisons, Punjab is absolutely correct because it is based on the report of District Magistrate dated 2-7-2003 concluding that release of the petitioner would result into breach of peace and law and order. 6. 6. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record, I find that case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of this Court in Joginder Singhs case (supra) in so far as his case has been rejected on the ground that his release would result into breach of peace/law and order on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 6 of the Act reads as under : "6. Cases where consultation with District Magistrate not necessary or where prisoners are not to be released. Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, (1) It shall not be necessary to consult the District Magistrate where the State Government is satisfied that the prisoner maintained good conduct during the period of his earlier release under any of the aforesaid sections; and (ii) no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act, if on the report of the District Magistrate, where consultation with him is necessary, the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or maintenance of public order." 7. The aforementioned provision has been interpreted by this Court in Joginder Singhs case (supra). The expression security of the State and public order has been interpreted in the same manner as was done by the Supreme Court while interpreting Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The expression security of the State has been interpreting by importing the same meaning as was given to this expression in the case of Romesh Thappar v.The State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124. Similarly, the expression public order has been distinguished from the popular concept of Law and order by placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740The observations of this Court in Joginder Singhs case (supra) read as under : "A key to the scheme of the Act is provided by Section 6, where satisfaction of the State Government or the releasing authority is expressly limited to endangering security of the State and maintenance of public order. The expressions "Security of State" and "Public order" occur in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. These expressions have been the subject-matter of Judicial Consideration and they have acquired a precise meaning. The expressions "Security of State" and "Public order" occur in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. These expressions have been the subject-matter of Judicial Consideration and they have acquired a precise meaning. Thus, security of the State is endangered by crimes of violence, intended to over throw the Government, waging of war and rebellion against the Government, external aggression or war, but not by minor breaches of public peace or tranquillity, such as unlawful assembly, riot, affray, rash driving, promoting enmity between classes and the like vide Ramesh Thappar V/s. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 594 . The concept of public order must be distinguished from the popular concept of law and order and ofsecurity of the State. They refer to three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of the State (Vide Ram Manohar v. State of Bihar, (1966) 1 SCR 709 at 746 : (1966 Cri LJ 609 at p. 627). Hence, an activity which affects law and order may not necessarily affect public order and an activity which may be prejudicial to public order may not necessarily endanger security of the State. The twin grounds of endangering security of State and public order may or may not be exhaustive of the grounds for refusing temporary release, but these grounds go a long way to suggest that grounds for refusal must be these and like grounds......" 8. This Court further held that aforementioned interpretation is justified because there are number of inbuilt safeguards in the Act and the Rules as the temporary release of a convict is subject to conditions which may be imposed on a prisoner before his release besides the fact that release is for a limited period of 4 to 6 weeks under Section 3 of the Act. The temporary release is awarded only for three weeks during the first year and two weeks during each successive year under Section 4 of the Act. Under Section 4 of the Act, x x x x x x x the temporary release is available only to those prisoners who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than five years and who have immediately before the date of their temporary release undergone imprisonment for a period of three years excluding remissions and has not committed any jail offence. He should have earned only three good conduct remissions with the prohibition that the person who is a habitual offender within the meaning of clause (3) of Section 2 of the Punjab Habitual Offenders (Control and Reform) Act, 1952 and who has been convicted of robbery or dacoity or such other offences as the State Government may, by notification, specify. 9. It is also appropriate to mention that similar view has been taken in the other judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, it appears that the case of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground that his release is likely to result into breach of peace and law and order. 10. However, it has to be kept in view that under Section 4 of the Act, there is a specific bar that before a prisoner who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than five years is released on parole, he must satisfy certain conditions, namely, that immediately before his date of temporary release, he has served the sentence for a period of three years excluding the remissions and that he has not committed any jail offence. He should have also earned three annual good conduct remissions. It is thereafter only that a prisoner becomes eligible for release for three weeks during the first year of his release and two weeks during each successive year thereafter. Section 4 of the Act reads as under : "4. Temporary release of prisoners on furlough. He should have also earned three annual good conduct remissions. It is thereafter only that a prisoner becomes eligible for release for three weeks during the first year of his release and two weeks during each successive year thereafter. Section 4 of the Act reads as under : "4. Temporary release of prisoners on furlough. (1) The State Government or any other officer authorised by it in this behalf may, in consultation with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily, on furlough, any prisoner who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than five years, and who (a) has, immediately before the date of his temporary release undergone imprisonment for a period of three years, excluding remissions; and (b) has not during such period committed any jail offence and has earned at least three annual good conduct remissions : Provided that nothing herein shall apply to a prisoner who (1) is a habitual offender as defined in clause (3) of Section 2 of the Punjab Habitual Offenders (Control and Reform) Act, 1952, or (2) The period of furlough for which a prisoner is eligible under sub-section (1) shall be three weeks during the first year of his release and two weeks during each successive year thereafter. (3) Subject to the provisions of clause (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the period of release referred to in sub-section (1) shall count towards the total period of sentence of prisoner." 11. In view of the above provisions, it has to be held that the petitioner has completed only about 2 years of sentence who has been imprisoned for life. Therefore, he cannot be released on parole before he completes a period of three years and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.