Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3428 (PNJ)

Jiwan Lal v. State Of Punjab

2006-09-05

T.P.S.MANN

body2006
Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to decide his application under Section 509 of the Punjab Jail Manual and for the grant of Better Class facilities (hereinafter referred to as `B-Class facilities) to him. 2. The petitioner, along with two others, was tried in FIR No. 425 dated 15.8.1999 registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala under Sections 302/34 IPC. During the trial of the said case, the petitioner was allowed B-Class facilities. However, after his conviction, he applied for the same facilities, but it was withheld by Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala. 3. According to the petitioner, he was an income tax payee. He has placed on record copies of the income tax returns for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000, as per which he paid a sum of Rs. 480/-, Rs. 167/- and Rs. 368/- as income tax, respectively, for the said years. Order (Annexure P- 2) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala while accepting the prayer of the petitioner for B-Class facilities during the trial of the case, has been referred to in support of the plea that petitioner was earlier granted such a benefit. Once the B-Class facilities were not granted to the petitioner after his conviction, he moved a petition in this regard, which was disposed of on 4.4.2005 with a direction to the petitioner to apply afresh under the new rule i.e. Para 509 of Punjab Jail Manual , 1996. The authorities were directed to dispose of the said application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such an application. Afterwards, the petitioner filed a fresh application, which was rejected by respondent No. 2, as is clear from letter dated 22.6.2006 (Annexure R-1) sent to Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala. 4. The plea of the petitioner is that he being an income-tax assessee and used to superior way of life, was entitled to B-Class facilities under para 509 of Punjab Jail Manual . In support of his plea, the petitioner has placed reliance on Naib Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1993(2) RCR(Criminal) 514. 4. The plea of the petitioner is that he being an income-tax assessee and used to superior way of life, was entitled to B-Class facilities under para 509 of Punjab Jail Manual . In support of his plea, the petitioner has placed reliance on Naib Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1993(2) RCR(Criminal) 514. Further that para No. 576-A of the old Punjab Jail Manual , which permitted the extension of B-Class facilities to those prisoners who by social status, education or habits of life, were accustomed to a superior mode of living, had the force of law and could not be superseded by executive instructions. 5. In reply, the stand of the respondents is that the application of the petitioner for B-Class facilities was not withheld by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala and was, in fact, rejected vide Annexure R-1. Further that, there was no provision of B-Class facilities for income tax payees as reported vide government letter No. 11/34/05-2J/1403 dated 18.5.2006. 6. Para 576-A of the Punjab Jail Manual has now been replaced by para 509 in the new Punjab Jail Manual , 1996. A perusal of the said para i.e. para 509 contains the rules for the classification of convicted and under-trial prisoners. In sub-para (1), it has been mentioned that the Better Class will contain all prisoners who, amongst others by social status, education and habits of life, have been accustomed to a superior mode of living. Note given at the end of sub-para (1) allowed the State Government to issue instructions from time to time for fixing criteria for determining the qualification for classifying a prisoner as better class. For facility of reference, the relevant para of the New Punjab Jail Manual , 1996 is produced hereinbelow :- "509(1) Convicted persons shall be divided into two classes, namely, "Better Class" and "Ordinary Class". For facility of reference, the relevant para of the New Punjab Jail Manual , 1996 is produced hereinbelow :- "509(1) Convicted persons shall be divided into two classes, namely, "Better Class" and "Ordinary Class". Better Class will contain all prisoners so classified by the State Government or any other authority empowered by the State Government in this behalf who : (a) are non-habitual prisoners of good character; (b) Are by social status, education and habits of life been accustomed to a superior mode of living, and (c) Have not been convicted of - (i) offences involving elements of sedition, cruelty, moral degradation or personal greed; (ii) serious or premeditated violence; (iii) serious offences against property; (iv) offences relating to TADA and the possession of explosives, firearms and other dangerous weapons with the object of committing offence or of enabling an offence to be committed; (v) persons convicted under COFEPOSA and NDPS Acts; (vi) Abetment or incitement of offences falling within these sub- clauses. Note. - The State Government may from time to time issue instructions for fixing criteria for determining the qualification for classifying a prisoner as Better Class." 7 Whether a prisoner, who is an income tax assessee and paying income tax regularly can fall within the category of those persons, who could claim to be having social status and habits of life, and thus, accustomed to a superior mode of living ? The answer to that would be in the negative. Level of richness may permit a person to go in for all the luxuries of life but that would not mean that such a person has attained the social status and habits of life making him accustomed to a superior mode of living. If the income level of the prisoner was to be made the criteria for judging him to be having a social status and used to habits of life making him accustomed to a superior mode of living, the legislature in its wisdom could have framed the law accordingly or the State Government could issue instructions later on as permitted by the note appended to new para 509(1). In fact, as per the said enabling clause the State Government vide letter No. 11/34/05-2J/1403 dated 18.5.2006 declared that there was no provision of B-Class facilities for income tax payees. 8. In fact, as per the said enabling clause the State Government vide letter No. 11/34/05-2J/1403 dated 18.5.2006 declared that there was no provision of B-Class facilities for income tax payees. 8. Even a perusal of the income tax returns appended by the petitioner to the present petition shows that a meagre sum of Rs. 480/- was paid by him as income tax for the assessment year 1997-1998, Rs. 167/- for the assessment year 1998-1999 and Rs. 368/- for the assessment year 1999-2000. By paying a nominal amount as income tax, the petitioner could not claim himself to be the one who had been accustomed to a superior mode of living. The judgment of Naib Singhs case (supra) was rendered on 10.5.1993. At that point of time para 576-A of Punjab Jail Manual was in vogue. The provisions were amended in the 1996, when new para 509 was introduced. Along with sub-para (1) of para 509, a note was also given which permitted the State Government to issue instructions from time to time for fixing criteria for determining the qualification for classifying a prisoner as B-class. The enabling clause was permitted by the legislature and thus, the State Government was competent to issue instructions so as to specify the various categories of prisoners, who could be extended B-Class facilities in the jails. The aforementioned letter dated 18.5.2006 has been issued by the State Government on the basis of the aforementioned provision of law. As such, the State Government was competent to deny B-Class facilities to the prisoners on account of they being only income tax payees. 9. In view of the above, the plea of the petitioner for extending B-Class facilities to him cannot be accepted and the petition is, accordingly, dismissed.