Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 885 (PNJ)

Buta Singh v. State Of Punjab

2011-03-22

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2011
Judgment NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the impugned letter dated 16.7.2008 (Annexure P-4) rejecting the case of the petitioner for grant of better class facilities. 2. The petitioner is admittedly undergoing imprisonment in case FIR No.80 dated 17.11.1995 under Sections 302, 201, 498 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sangat, Bathinda. During the imprisonment, the petitioner was earlier awarded better class facilities being educated and also on account of the fact that he fulfilled all requirements of Para 509 of Punjab Jail Manual. This fact is evident from the letter dated 30.11.1999 written by Inspector General Punjab (Jails), Chandigarh to Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda, which is placed on record as Annexure P-2. Learned counsel further contends that his case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Balkaran Singh v. State of Punjab and another decided on 31.7.2009 by this Court, which is placed on record as Annexure P-11. 3. Learned State counsel, however, vehemently opposed the petition and states that this petition is different from that of Balkaran Singhs case (supra) as he was guilty of offence not only of murder but also of greed as he killed his own wife. As such, the crime is not covered for grant of B Class facilities in accordance with law laid down in Punjab Jail Manual in Para 509 (i)(C)(1). 4. Heard. 5. The provisions of better class facilities are provided to the prisoner who have maintained good character and further pursuing the studies and have a social status and accustomed to a particular mode of living. It is not disputed that the petitioner is not a previous convict and is keeping a good social status. It is also not disputed that earlier the petitioner was granted the said facilities after taking into consideration that he fulfilled all the conditions. His case was also recommended by Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda to respondent No.2 vide letter dated 9.2.2008. Even otherwise, this Court does not find any difference qua the case of Balkaran Singh and the present petitioner. In fact, Balkaran Singh was guilty of committing double murder. 6. In view of the above, the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Balkaran Singh v. State of Punjab decided on 31.7.2009, placed on record as Annexure P-11. In fact, Balkaran Singh was guilty of committing double murder. 6. In view of the above, the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Balkaran Singh v. State of Punjab decided on 31.7.2009, placed on record as Annexure P-11. No impediment for grant of better class facilities to the petitioner is pointed out, more so, when he was earlier also granted better class facilities. 7. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and respondents are directed to provide better class facilities to the petitioner, who is undergoing sentence in FIR No.80 dated 17.11.1995 under Sections 302, 201, 498 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sangat, Bathinda.