JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: - The short but important question of law that falls for consideration in the instant petition is whether the procedural provisions can be allowed to prevail upon the substantive provisions provided under any peace of legislation. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for to release him on parole for four weeks enabling him to perform the marriage of his son, which is scheduled to be solemnized on 24.4.2012. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to be released on parole for a period of four weeks in view of the provisions of Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. (‘Act of 1962’ for short) 3. Factual background, necessary for disposal of the issue involved in the present case, can be put into a narrow compass. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 15 dated 1.4.2001 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short’), registered at police station Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur. Consequently, the petitioner was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, for the commission of an offence under Section 406 IPC. He was con­victed and sentenced vide judgment and order of sentence dated 12.9.2009, to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo fur­ther RI for one month. 4. Feeling aggrieved against the above said judg­ment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.9.2009, the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the learned court of Additional Ses­sions Judge, Ferozepur, vide judgment dated 5.3.2012. However, sentence of the petitioner was reduced from one year to nine months. Criminal revision bearing No. 790 of 2012 filed by the petitioner against the above said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is pending consideration before this Court. The petitioner is undergoing the above said sentence and is pres­ently confined in Central Jail, Ferozepur. 5. Since the marriage of the petitioner’s son namely Pardeep came to be fixed to be solemnized with Rachna, daughter of Smt. Mamta Rani wife of late Sh. The petitioner is undergoing the above said sentence and is pres­ently confined in Central Jail, Ferozepur. 5. Since the marriage of the petitioner’s son namely Pardeep came to be fixed to be solemnized with Rachna, daughter of Smt. Mamta Rani wife of late Sh. Madan Mohan on 24.4.2012, the petitioner applied before the re­spondents vide his representation dated 10.3.2012 (Annexure P-1), making a request for grant of parole for four weeks in connection with the marriage of his son-Pardeep. Municipal Councillor, Talwandi Bhai, District Ferozepur, also recommended the release of the petitioner on parole vide Panchayatnama (Annexure P-2) and marriage card has been annexed as An­nexure P-3. 6. Notice of motion was issued to the State of Punjab vide order dated 17.4.2012. In compli­ance of the order dated 17.4.2012, reply by way of affidavit of Raman dip Singh Sandhu, P.P.S. Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur, on be­half of respondents No. 1 and 2 has been filed. In terms of the reply filed by the State, factum of marriage of the son of the petitioner, Pardeep, which is scheduled to be held on 24.4.2012, has been got verified and found to be correct. How­ever, the sole ground for non consideration of the request of the petitioner, submitted vide An­nexure P-1, is that he was not entitled to be re­leased on parole for a period of four weeks, in view of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules 3 (‘Rules of 1963’ for short). 7. The averment taken in this regard in para 2 of the reply, reads as under: “That the instant writ petition of the petitioner as framed is not maintainable in its present form and the same is liable to be dismissed only on the short ground that as per Notifi­cation dated 23rd of September 2003 of the Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice (Jails Branch), wherein it is specifically mentioned that “Provided that no such application shall be processed by the Superintendent of Jail, un­less the prisoner had maintained good con­duct after his conviction at least for four months in Jail. “ 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, have gone through the record of the case. 9. “ 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, have gone through the record of the case. 9. After giving thoughtful consideration to the ri­val contentions and also in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the pre­sent petition deserves to be allowed. The relevant provisions of law under which the petitioner is claiming to be released on parole provided under Section 3 of the Act of 1962, read as under:­- “Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds.-(1) The State Government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate 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) a member of the prisoner’s family had died or is seriously ill; or (b) the marriage of the prisoner’s son or daughter is to be celebrated; or (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 any other land cultivated by him] and no friend of the prisoner or a member of the prisoner’s family is prepared to help him in this behalf in his absence; or (d) it is desirable so to do for any other suffi­cient cause. (2) The period for which a prisoner may be re­ leased shall be determined by the State Gov­ernment so as not to exceed. (a) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1), two weeks; (b) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub-section (1), four weeks; and (c) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1), six weeks ((2-A)] Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (2), where a prisoner undergo­ing a to sentence of life imprisonment, is to be released on the ground specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1), he may be released for a period of six months or less in parts, during the five years.] (3) The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner. (4) The State Government may by notification authorise any officer to exercise its power under this section in respect of all or any of the grounds specified therein. 10. It is pertinent to note here that proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1963 came to be added vide notification dated 23.9.2003 (Annexure R-1). Relevant part of Rule 3 of Rules of 1963 reads as under: 3. “Procedure for temporary release. [Sections 3, 4, 10(1), 10(2) (b), 10 (2)(d) and 10(2)(e)]. - (1) A prisoner desirous of seeking temporary release under section 3 or section 4 of the Act shall make an application in Form A-1 or Form A-2, as the case may be, to the Superintendent of Jail. Such an application may also be made by an adult member of the prisoner’s family. (2) The Superintendent of Jail shall forward the application along with his report to the District Magistrate, who, after consulting the Superintendent of Police of his District, shall forward the case with his recommendations to the Inspector General. The Inspector-General will then record his views on the case whether the prisoner is to be released or not and submit the same to the Releasing Authority for orders. The District Magistrate, before making any recommen­dation, shall verify the facts and grounds on which release has been requested and shall also give his opinion whether the temporary release on parole or furlough is opposed on grounds of prisoner’s presence being dan­gerous to the Security of State or prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. [Provided that no such application shall be processed by the Superintendent of Jail, unless the prisoners had maintained good conduct after his conviction at least for four months in jail.]” 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehe­mently contended that once the respondents are not disputing any of the factual aspects of the matter including the marriage of the son of the petitioner scheduled to be held on 24.4.2012 vide Annexure P-3, the Panchayatnama (Annexure P-­2) and the representation submitted by the peti­tioner vide Annexure P-1, the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1963 would not come in the way of the petitioner. Learned coun­sel for the petitioner further submits that Rule 3 including the proviso to sub-rule 2 thereof is only the procedural provision which must give way to the substantive provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1962. 12. Concluding her arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in criminal writ petition No. 2019 of 2011 titled as Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2011(1) Law Herald (P&H) 857 decided 31.10.2011. 13. So far as the relevant facts of the case that, pe­titioner is undergoing sentence in Central Jail, Ferozepur, after dismissal of his appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide judg­ment dated 5.3.2012; marriage of the son of the petitioner is scheduled to be solemnised on 24.4.2012, as per the marriage card (Annexure P­3), Panchayatnama (Annexure P-2), issued by the Municipal Councillor, recommending re­lease of the petitioner on emergency parole and the representation dated 10.3.2012 moved by the petitioner vide Annexure P-1, are not in dispute as per the reply filed by the respondents. The only ground on the, basis of which the respon­dents have expressed their inability to consider the request of the petitioner for his release on emergency parole, is that the petitioner does not meet the requirement under proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1963 which envis­ages that no such application shall be processed by the Superintendent of Jail, unless prisoner is maintaining good conduct after his conviction at least for four months in jail. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the par­ties and after careful perusal of the provisions of law, noted above, this Court is of the view that the stand taken by the respondents is wholly mis­placed. I say so because the object of the Act of 1962, to provide for temporary release to the prisoners in the case of certain eventualities would stand defeated in case the procedural pro­visions under the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1963 are permitted to prevail upon the substantive provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1962. Further, it is the settled proposi­tion of law that the rules of procedure are the handmaids of justice and are to be followed for advancing the cause of justice. 15. Further, it is the settled proposi­tion of law that the rules of procedure are the handmaids of justice and are to be followed for advancing the cause of justice. 15. The view taken by this Court also finds sup­port from the Division Bench judgment of this Court decided on 31.10.2011, in criminal writ petition No. 2019 of 2011. 16. The relevant observations made by the Divi­sion Bench, which can be gainfully referred, read as under: “However, temporary release on parole has been declined to the petitioner in view of the proviso to sub-rue (2) of rule 3 of the Rules. Rule 3 of the Rules provides the procedure for temporary release and it envisages the procedure to be followed and the applica­tion form to be filled in by a prisoner for temporary release as also the steps to be taken by Superintendent of Jail for forwarding the application. The proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 3 of the Rules was inserted by a notification dated 23.9.2003 and it envis­ages that no such application shall be proc­essed by the Superintendent of Jail, unless the prisoner has maintained good conduct after his conviction at least for four months in jail. The provision of rule 3 of the Rules are procedural provisions, which are direc­tory and not mandatory. The provisions of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, however, are sub­stantive provisions which would prevail over the procedural provisions of the Rules. The object of Section 3 of the Act is to provide for temporary release to prisoners in case of certain eventualities which are that (a) a member of the prisoner’s family had died or is seriously ill; or (b) the marriage of the prisoner’s son or daughter is to be celebrated; or (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 any other land cultivated by him] and no friend of the prisoner or member of the prisoner’s family is prepared to help him in this behalf in his absence; (d) it is desirable for any other sufficient cause. We are even otherwise of the view that the proviso added to sub-rule(2) of rule 3 of the Rules would not supersede the substantive provisions of the Act specially in a case where the release of the petitioner is sought immediately so as to enable him to arrange for the treatment for his mother.” 17. In view of what has been discussed above and following the golden rule of interpretation, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the harmonious construction of proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1963 is that it will not stand in the way of achieving the object envisaged under the substantive provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1962. wherever the substantive and procedural provisions are found pitted against each other and in case the procedural provisions are allowed to prevail upon the substantive provisions, the very object of the Act shall stand defeated. This can never be the legislative intent while framing the statute. Otherwise also, such bottlenecks cannot be allowed to stand in the way to achieve the purpose and object of the Act of 1962. 18. Resultantly, I unhesitatingly conclude that proviso added to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1963, inserted vide notification dated 23.9.2003, would not supersede the substantive provisions of the Act of 1962, particularly in a situation like the one in the present case where the petitioner is seeking the release on emergency parole enabling him to arrange and attend the marriage of his son. 19. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, it is held that release of the petitioner on emergency parole cannot be denied solely on the basis proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1963. In case, the waiting period of four months after conviction is to be completed as envisaged under the proviso added to sub rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1963, as the stand taken by the respondents in the instant case, it will defeat the very object of the Act of 1962 and the legislative intent behind it. Having said that, it is held without any hesitation that the substantive provisions of the Act of 1962 cannot be permitted to be circumvented by the rules of procedure. 20. Having said that, it is held without any hesitation that the substantive provisions of the Act of 1962 cannot be permitted to be circumvented by the rules of procedure. 20. In view of the above, the present petition deserves to be accepted and, therefore, it is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 10.3.2012, submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure P-1, de-hors that proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1963. 21. In view of the fact that petitioner’s son is scheduled to get married on 24.4.2012, necessary exercise be carried out forthwith. The instant petition stands allowed.