Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1074 (PNJ)

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana

2004-09-18

S.S.SARON

body2004
JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J. - This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Criminal Procedure Code for short) for grant of house repair parole under Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (Act for short) after setting aside the order dated 21.1.2004 (Annexure P-1) rejecting the parole of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for seven years after his conviction in case FIR No. 150 of 1987 registered at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, District Gurgaon for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced a year earlier to the filing of the present petition which was filed on 25.3.2004. The petitioner made a request for temporary release for repairing his house. However, the same was rejected by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana (respondent No. 1) vide impugned order dated 21.1.2004 (Annexure P-1). The reasons recorded for rejecting the parole are that the District Magistrate, Gurgaon had informed through his report that father of the prisoner has a house in Village Ferozepur Jhirka which does not require repairs. Besides, even if the necessity arose for the repair there are other members in the family who can get the house repaired. Accordingly, the request for release on parole has been rejected. 3. On notice, reply has been filed by Superintendent, District Jail, Gurgaon on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is stated that release on parole is a concession given by the State Government and no prisoner is entitled to it as a matter of right. Besides, the case of the petitioner was sent to the District Magistrate, Gurgaon for report/representation but the latter did not recommend the release vide his letter dated 7.1.2004 (Annexure R-1). Keeping in view the said adverse report, the Director General of Prisons, Haryana (respondent No. 1), who is the competent authority rejected the parole release case of the petitioner vide order dated 21.1.2004. It is stated that the family members of the petitioner, i.e., his wife and children can get the house repaired. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that order rejecting the parole of the petitioner is erroneous as there has been no due consideration to the material on record. It is stated that the family members of the petitioner, i.e., his wife and children can get the house repaired. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that order rejecting the parole of the petitioner is erroneous as there has been no due consideration to the material on record. It is contended that the report of the Municipal Committee, Ferozepur Jhirka (Annexure P-2) has not been considered by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana (respondent No. 1). In the said report it is recorded that the petitioner owns a house in Ward No. 4 which is in deplorable condition and its repair is essential. Besides, at the home of the petitioner there is only his old mother, who is unable to get the house repaired because father of the petitioner is also undergoing imprisonment. The said report also records that there is no apprehension of breach of peace if the petitioner comes in the village. Accordingly, the Nagar Palika strongly recommended the parole to petitioner. The said report, it is contended, was a relevant material which was liable to be taken into consideration while considering the case of the petitioner. 5. In response, learned counsel for the State submits that the District Magistrate, Gurgaon did not recommend the release of the petitioner on parole and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for the concession of release. It is also contended that the report of the Municipal Committee referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not have much weight in comparison to the report of the local Police. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is appropriate to note that the petitioner has sought his release on parole in terms of Section 3(1)(d) of the Act which envisages that the State Government may in consultation with the District Magistrate or any other officer appointed in this regard and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, any prisoner, if the State Government is satisfied that it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act provides the period for which a prisoner may be released on parole. 7. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act provides the period for which a prisoner may be released on parole. 7. The decision of the authority to decline parole is an administrative decision and such decisions are open to judicial review. It is well known that this Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters. The nomenclature under which the petition is filed is not quite relevant and that does not debar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction which it otherwise possesses unless there is a special procedure prescribed which is mandatory. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is to be resorted to correct the errors which are committed by the authorities. The judicial review of the administrative decision for the purpose of release on parole envisages the consideration of all material facts which are relevant in the decision making process and at the same time to exclude all irrelevant facts from the consideration process. Besides, the decision should neither be perverse nor irrational. A perverse decision would be an improper or contradictory decision but symbolises a decision not supported by any evidence and an irrational decision would be one which no person properly advised on the facts would come to. Even otherwise it may be noticed that the Act is a piece of beneficial legislation and has been enacted to provide for temporary release on parole of good conduct on certain conditions. 8. In the case in hand, while considering the case of the petitioner for temporary release on parole it has merely been mentioned that the house does not require repair and there are family members of the petitioner who can get the house repaired. However, the report of the Municipal Committee, Ferozepur Jhirka (Annexure P-2) has not been considered which, as already noticed above, has strongly recommended the release of the petitioner on parole besides has stated that the house of the petitioner is in deplorable condition and its repair is essential. It is further stated that only the old mother of the petitioner is at home and she is unable to get the house repaired because father of the petitioner is also undergoing imprisonment. The report also states that there is no apprehension of breach of peace if the petitioner comes on parole. It is further stated that only the old mother of the petitioner is at home and she is unable to get the house repaired because father of the petitioner is also undergoing imprisonment. The report also states that there is no apprehension of breach of peace if the petitioner comes on parole. This was and is a relevant material which was liable to be taken into consideration in the decision making process. Rather, a stand has been taken in the written statement that the report of the Municipal Committee does not have any weight in comparison to the report of the local Police. It is stated that local Police is answerable and the Municipal Committee is an elected body which could give a certificate to suit the convenience of the petitioner. Municipal Committee is a statutory body constituted under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and it cannot be treated with such contempt as has been mentioned in the written statement. Its recommendations were liable for due consideration in the decision making process. 9. In the circumstances, the recommendations of the Municipal Committee, Ferozepur Jhirka, which is a statutory body, having not been considered and rather being sidetracked with the observations that it could give a certificate to suit the convenience of the petitioner, vitiates the impugned decision of the Director General of Prisons, Haryana (respondent No. 1) for failure to consider the relevant material on record. Accordingly, the decision dated 21.1.2004 (Annexure P-1) of the Director General of Prisons, Haryana (respondent No. 1) is set aside and quashed and it is directed that he shall re-consider the matter afresh as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two months of the receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.