Chand Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Koul, J.

In compliance with this Court order dated 9.5.1996 Mr. Grewal has filed the order of rejection passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab Chandigarh dated 30.10.1995, which is placed on the record of file.

The convictChand Singh (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) stood convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and was ordered to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot. The convict is undergoing his sentence of imprisonment in District Jail, Faridkot and while taking the benefit of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release Act, 1862 as contained in Section 3(d) of the said Act, an application was moved by him for his release on temporary parole for four weeks for effecting repairs of his dilapidated house. The matter within the provisions of Section 3(d) of the said Act was taken up for consideration by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab who sought the report of the District Magistrate, who reported that if the convict is released on parole, there was likelihood of breach of peace taking place in the area. For these reasons the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, concerned, did into recommend the case of the petitioner for temporary release within the ambit of Section 3(d) of the Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Grewal, Assistant Advocate General (Punjab) and have given thoughtful consideration to the documents on the file.

At the outset, as far as the terminology of section 3 of the said Act is concerned, it is provided that the State Government in consultation with the District Magistrate or any other officer appointed in this behalf, by notification and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, is empowered to release temporarily for a period specified in subsection (2) any prisoner from the prison with certain stipulation laid down in subsections (a) to (d). Subclause (d) of the Section says that it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. The case of the petitioner does not fall within the condition laid down under clauses (a) to (c) but is covered by Subclause (d) of the Section 3 of the said Act and the Inspector General of Prisons has to determine the matter as a quasijudicial authority and he has to consider the case of every convict who seeks parole on merit of each case, having regard to the justice in mind whether the convict required parole for the purpose as laid down in the Section. He cannot bypass the section saying that there is likelihood of breach of peace in the area if the convict is released on parole. It is the duty of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police to maintain the law and order in the area. If there is any apprehension for breach of peace, it is the duty of the Police and the District Magistrate to look into the matter and give protection to the people who are expecting such danger from the release of the accused on parole. The law laid down is that no body can be released if his release is detrimental to the security of the country or there is likelihood that his release in any way will endanger the security or integrity of the country. The mere allegations that there is apprehension of breach of peace is no criteria on the basis of which the Inspector General of Prisons can refuse the release of the petitioner on temporary parole for a specified period as laid down in the Section. Hence, the order passed by the Inspector General of Prison is set aside. He is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and to pass the appropriate order within 10 days from the receipt of this order. A copy of the order to be provided to the petitioner by tomorrow on payment of costs.