Ganga Lal vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is Crl.Misc. No. 31731M of 1998 filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India whereby Ganga Lal (petitioner herein) is claiming agricultural parole for a period of 4 weeks under section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (in short the Act). He has prayed for the quashing of the order Annexure P1 passed by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana refusing him agricultural parole. In support of his prayer for the grant of parole, he has alleged that there is 10 acres of land situated in village Khajurka, tehsil Palwal shown in the name of his mother Smt. Kela Devi d/o Khiali Ram in Jamabandi Annexure P2. He is to cultivate that land. There is none in the family to cultivate that land as his brother Jagvir and Virender are in jail along with him in a murder case.

Respondent State of Haryana has contested the prayer for the grant of parole to him for carrying out agricultural operations urging that he owns no agricultural land nor there is agricultural land in the name of his father. Director General of Prisons rejected his prayer for release on parole for carrying out agricultural operations in view of the report of District Magistrate, Faridabad Annexure R1 which says that he owns no land in village Khajurka.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Haryana and have gone through the record.

It is true that the petitioner owns no land nor his father owns any land in the revenue estate of village Khajurka. His mother Kela Devi d/0 Khiali Ram owns 1/2 share in land measuring 15 Kanal 13 marla. Other 1/2 share is owned by Bhagwan Sahay, Pahlad and Dev Raj sons of Khiali Ram. In the column of cultivation, land is shown in selfcultivation of cosharers. Learned AAG, Haryana submitted that as the land is in the selfcultivation of cosharers, it can be cultivated by Bhagwan Sahay etc. and they can give Smt. Kela Devi her share of the produce or theka of 7 kanal 161/2 marla of land. Learned AAG, Haryana submitted that in view of the provisions of section 3(1) (c) of the Act, agricultural parole can be allowed only if the prisoner himself holds land or his father holds land and he means to cultivate that land.

Section 3(1) (c) of the Act reads as follows :

"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 subsection (2), any prisoner, if the State Government is satisfied that

(c) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for plough sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation on his land or his father''s undivided land actually in possession of the prisoner; or"

Suffice it to say, this Act is a beneficent measure intended to provide succour to the prisoners who are in jail away from their families and therefore it should be interpreted liberally. In the word "father" used in section 3(1)(c) of the Act, we have to read "mother" also as if we do not read the word "mother" in the word "father", that would defeat the intention of the legislature keeping in view which this Act was enacted. It is true that Kela Devi''s share can be cultivated by her brothers Bhagwan Sahay etc. but it is equally true that if her sons want to cultivate her share, they cannot be stopped from cultivating her share. Statute law should be interpreted in a manner that the interpreting is in fulfilment of the object of the Act and not in defeating the object of the Act. It is cardinal rule governing the interpretation of statutes that where a provision admits of two interpretations, that interpretation should be adopted which fulfils the object for which the Act was enacted and that interpretation should be avoided which defeats its object. So, this Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the petitioner is allowed two weeks parole for carrying out agricultural operations on that land. He will be released on parole on his furnishing necessary bonds before the District Magistrate, Faridabad. Impugned order passed by the Director General of Prisons is set aside and this Crl. Misc. petition succeeds.