Gurcharan Singh vs Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab

S.K. Jain, J.

Gurcharan Singh, petitioner herein was challaned, charged, tried convicted under Section 30, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He is undergoing sentence in Central Jail, Patiala. He has applied for his temporary release under Section 3(1)(c) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purposes of carrying on agricultural operations in his land. Since his petition was not decided he has brought this writ petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for securing his temporary release. Respondents were served. A reply to the petition has been filed. Para No. 3 of the reply reads as under :

"That six weeks agricultural parole case of the petitioner initiated by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala on 10.10.1991 has been thoroughly considered and rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab on 21.6.1991 on the basis of below reproduced report of Senior Superintendent of Police/District Magistrate Sangrur :

"Application of prisoner Gurcharan Singh son of Jawahar Singh has been made (sic) and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barnala and found that complainant (six) party fully apprehended danger from the convict and both the parties have not reconciled as yet. So on the basis of report of SHC and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barnala, release on parole is not recommended."

Sd/

Senior Superintendent of Police,

Sangrur.

Keeping in view public peace and order, release on parole is not recommended in view of opinion of Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur.

Sd/

for District Magistrate,

Sangrur."

From the above reply following two facts are evident :

That some Officer other than the District Magistrate Sangrur, on the basis of the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police Sangrur had reported that the release of the petitioner (temporary) could not be recommended in view of public peace and order;

That in opinion of the Senior Superintendent of Police and the said Officer, who has signed for the District Magistrate, if the petitioner was released temporarily, it was likely to endanger the maintenance of public peace and order.

Section 6 of the Act provides as under :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order."

Analytical examination of the abovesaid provisions would show that the request of prisoner for temporary release under Section 3 of the Act could be declined by the State Government i.e. the Secretary of the department or by an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, if such State Government (Secretary of the department of such Officer) on the basis of a report of the District Magistrate (and not any officer other than the District Magistrate) was satisfied that the release of the prisoner was likely to endanger (i) the security of the State or (ii) the maintenance of the public order.

When the reply of the respondents is given the above acid test. I find that there is nothing on the record to show that the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab who had passed the impugned order dated 21.4.1992 rejecting the application of the prisoners for temporary release was an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf as required under Section 6 of the Act. Admittedly the said order was not passed by the State Government i.e. the Secretary of the Department concerned. Secondly, the report on which the satisfaction of the State Government or an officer authorised by in this behalf, is to be based, has not been signed by the District Magistrate rather it has been signed by the somebody else for District Magistrate, Sangrur as is evident from the bare reading of para 3 of the reply which has been reproduced above. Thus, it is evident on the face of the record that the requirement of Section 6 of the Act has not been complied with and that being so the impugned order of April 22, 1992 cannot be sustained in the eye of law which is hereby quashed. The State Authorities are directed to reconsider the case of temporary release of the petitioner under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act within a period of one month from today.

JUDGMENT accordingly.