Darbara Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Koul, J. (Oral)

The petitioner, Darbara Singh, who is a life convict a seeking the temporary release on parole within the provisions of law as envisaged under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 on the ground that the marriage of his sister Dalbir Kaur is to take place on 14.9.1996. In this regard, he sought the intervention of the administrative authorities including the Inspector General of Prisons for his temporary release but of no avail and as such has sought the intervention of this court within the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the reply has been filed by the respondentState and the petition of the petitioner is controverted by the State on the ground that the petitioner has not undergone 1 year''s sentence from the date he has been convicted and sentenced. The State is relying on some administrative standing orders of dated 23rd August, 1976. The learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has not been able to convey to the court as to how the standing orders have been formulated by the Government and in what manner it restricts the prisoners right for grant of relief of temporary parole within the ambit of Section 3 of Act that unless a prisoner has undergone 1 year''s imprisonment, is not entitled to benefit of parole as laid down under Section 3 of the Act. This Court has already held in Cr. Misc. No. 7703M of 1996, which is reproduced as below :

"Today Mr. Vimal Kumar placed on record a photostat copy of the standing order and in no manner it can be said that it restricted the prisoners for grant of relief of temporary parole within the ambit of Section 3 of the Act, unless they have undergone one year''s imprisonment. The said order is silent as to who are the prisoners to whom such relief can be granted within a period of one year and to whom such relief cannot be granted. Such partial attitude of the State Government is not appreciable and the said order in no manner indicates that it has been issued within the concept of Section 3 of the Act. The standing order issued by the State Government cannot override the statutory purport of the law as envisaged under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act which are self explanatory and the conditions for such release are given therein. It is only on the grounds mentioned in those sections that one is entitled to the relief of temporary release."

Besides, there is another Single Bench judgment recorded in Criminal Misc. No. 5971M of 1996 titled as Pehlad and others v. State of Haryana. In that judgment, one of the learned Benches of this court has held that there is no embargo laid down under Section 3 of the said Act which restrains the lifeconvict not to apply for parole unless he has put in one year in the jail. The present case is governed by the two precedents of this court as mentioned above and it can solely be said that the standing order cannot restrict the provisions of Section 3 of the Act to formulate that a prisoner cannot seek the relief of temporary parole within the ambit of Section 3 of the Act unless he has undergone 1 year''s imprisonment. In view of this fact, the petition is accepted and the authorities are directed to dispose of it in accordance with law, after a copy of the order is received by them from the court.