Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1241 (PNJ)

Tarlochan Lal v. State Of Haryana

2008-07-17

AJAY K.MITTAL

body2008
Judgment 1. In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for his temporary release on parole for a period of six weeks, under the provisions of Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct of Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). 2. The petitioner was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two years, by the Special Court. Kuruk-shetra, vide order dated 7-8-2007. As per averments in the petition, the petitioner owns agricultural land in the village. He has two children who are school-going, besides his wife, who are unable to look after the agricultural work. It was further averred that the petitioner was earlier married to one Bhago Devi and he had another son namely, Jarnail Singh from that wedlock and Jarnail Singh is now about 21 years of age, who is, however, residing with his maternal aunt in District Yamuna Nagar and he never helped the petitioner in the agricultural work. 3. The petitioner earlier applied for his release on parole for agricultural purposes but his request was declined. A copy of letter from the District Magistrate, Kuruk-shetra has been attached by the petitioner as Annexure P-2, which was addressed to the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt, whereby his case for release was not recommended by the authorities. The petitioner has also attached with the petition an affidavit (Annexure P-3) of his son Jarnail Singh who has stated that he was living at Yamuna Nagar, and a certificate of the Gram Panchayat of his village, Annexure P-4, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had never been released on parole and there was no one to look after the land of the petitioner. 4. On notice of motion having been issued, reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the reply, it has been stated that the District Magistrate, Kurukshetra has not recommended the release of the petition on parole on the ground that two other cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were pending against him in the Courts. In the reply, it has been stated that the District Magistrate, Kurukshetra has not recommended the release of the petition on parole on the ground that two other cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were pending against him in the Courts. The Commissioner, i.e. the sanctioning authority, therefore, rejected the case of the petitioner for release on parole on the basis of the aforesaid report. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to be released on parole for a period of six weeks, for sowing or harvesting or carrying out any agricultural operation on his land or his fathers undivided land actually in possession of the petitioner. The counsel further submitted that the only ground on the basis of which the benefit of parole has been denied to the petitioner, as mentioned in para 8 of the reply, is that there were two more cases under the NDPS Act pending in Courts against the petitioner. The counsel contended that the reason on the basis of which the case of the petitioner has been rejected does not fall in any of the grounds mentioned in the aforesaid provisions of the Act. Learned State Counsel, however, controverted the aforesaid submission and supported the order passed by the respondents denying the concession of parole to the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and have gone through the record. 7. Section 3(1)(c) of the Act which stipulates the conditions on which a convict can be released on parole reads as under : "3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds. (1) The State Government 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)............................... (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 of the prisoner;" 8. (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 of the prisoner;" 8. Section 6 of the Act prescribes certain situations and cases in which the prisoners are not entitled to be released. The said Section reads thus : "6. Prisoners not entitled to be released in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or any officer authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order." 9. It is apparent from the provisions of Section 6 that the concession of release of a prisoner under the provisions of this Act has to be refused in case the authorities concerned were of the view that the release of such prisoner was likely to endanger the security of the state or the maintainance of public order. The ground on the basis of which the case of the petitioner has been rejected, namely, the pendency of two cases under the NDPS Act against him in the Court, does not find mentioned anywhere in the Act and this ground, therefore, is not legally sustainable. 10. This Court, while considering the question of release of a prisoner on parole, who was undergoing the sentence in the case under the NDPS Act, in Kashmir Singh V/s. State of Punjab, 1996 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 761, held that undoubtedly, as per Section 6 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, which is pari materia to the Act, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released on parole if on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or any other officer authorized by it in that behalf was satisfied that the release of such person was likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. It was further held that there was no other impediment laid down under the Act on the basis of which a prisoner can be denied the temporary release on parole to effect the repairs of his house. 11. It was further held that there was no other impediment laid down under the Act on the basis of which a prisoner can be denied the temporary release on parole to effect the repairs of his house. 11. In the instant case, there is no such finding recorded against the petitioner and to notice further in specific terms that there is no material on the record that there was any finding recorded by any authority that the release of the petitioner on parole would endanger the security of the State or it would be detrimental to the maintenance of public order. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to be released on parole for agricultural purposes as asked for by him which shall, of course, be for a period to be decided by the sanctioning authority. 12. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the respondent-authorities are directed to issue an order for temporary release of the petitioner for a period to be fixed by the competent authority within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received by them, as per rules and on usual undertaking to be furnished by the petitioner.