Ladha Singh vs State of Punjab and ors.

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

Facts necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are that Ladha Singh, petitioner was convicted for the offence of murder on 3.4.1981 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He had remained an undertrial prisoner for 8 months and 1 day; had served actual sentence of 7 years 12 days and had earned remission of 5 years 4 months. His case for temporary release on furlough. under Section 4 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, was duly recommended by the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Ferozepore. Eventually, the InspectorGeneral of Prisons, Punjab, rejected the recommendation on 19.3.1986 on what has been described as stereotyped grounds. The reason for rejecting the prayer was apprehension of breach of peace and danger to public peace and tranquillity on the basis of the report of the local police which was endorsed by the Superintendent of Police. The order rejecting prayer of the petitioner has been challenged as illegal, mala fide. arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioner has asserted that he had been of good conduct throughout his incarceration and the entire Village Panchayat had, strongly recommended his release on furlough.

The State of Punjab filed a reply. The facts mentioned in the petition have not been disputed. In the reply the District Magistrate, Ferozepore, has stated that the local police did not recommend the application and the report of the local police was endorsed by Senior Superintendent of Police. He agreed with the views of the Senior Superintendent of Police, which led to the rejection of the Prayer.

Mrs. Rekha Palli, learned counsel for the State of Punjab, took a preliminary objection that the prayer for release on furlough had, been rejected far back in March ''1986 and the present petition had been filed in April, 1988 i.e. more than 2 years after the rejection. The circumstances in which the aforesaid delay was caused, had not been disclosed in the application and. therefore, the present Writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay.

Mr. J.S. Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that no limitation was prescribed either in the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoner''s (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 or any other law for approaching the High Court by way of a Criminal Writ Petition. He also argued that with the filing of the writ petition, the State had been given a fresh opportunity to come up with the relevant material, which weighed with the authorities in making an adverse report and in taking the decision against the petitioner. If on a consideration of that material the Court came to a conclusion that there was no adequate basis for the order passed against the petitioner, the petition may not be thrown out on the mere ground of delay. He submitted that the petitioner is a poor illiterate villager. Apart from the delay involved in communicating the order of the authorities to him, he had to collect money to file this petition and being in custody had to depend for long period on relations and friends who visited him in jail.

After, careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the present petition should not be dismissed on ground of delay. The factual position has not been disputed in the reply filed by the District Magistrate, Ferozopore. Even, though full opportunity was given to the State to place on record the material and the reasons which weighed with the authorities in rejecting the prayer, they have not been able to place any such material. The result is that there was only a report in general terms that in the release of the petitioner on furlough the authorities apprehended a breach of peace. Such a sweeping conclusion can hardly be justified in the absence of any material on record. In the facts of this case, it appears to me that the report of the Section House Officer has been endorsed in routine by the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate and the Inspector General of Prisons has acted on those reports. The State has not been able to place on record any cogent and convincing material justifying the conclusion that release of the petitioner on furlough would endanger public peace or be responsible for breach of peace.

For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on three weeks'' furlough to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Ferozepore.