High Courts

Satnam Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 5 January 1988 · Citation: (1988) 1 AICLR 820 : (1988) 1 CurLJ 214 : (1988) 1 RCR(Criminal) 430 : (1988) 1 RCR(Criminal) 426

HON’BLE JUDGES
I.S.Tiwana, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1974 of 1987
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 314 words

I.S. Tiwana, J.

1.

The petitionr, a life convict, was released on six weeks'' parole by the State Government from November 16 to December 28, 1987, under Section 3(1)(c) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners'' (Temporary Release Act), 1962, i.e., for purposes of carrying out his agricultural pursuits. He was required to surrender to the jail authorities on 29th December, 1987. He, however, filed this petition on 28th December, 1987 just towards the end of his parole period for its extention on the ground that his wife was seriously ill. This Court, vide its order of the same date, extended the parole till today, in the light of a certificate from the Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar produced by the petitioner in support of his abovenoted stand. This relief was granted only as an interim measure.

2.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I find no merit in this petition. Not only that the genuineness of the certificate referred to above is not beyond question the alleged illness of the wife has come to appear just towards the end of the parole granted to him by the State authorities the petitioner cannot be granted the relief in view of the provisions of subsections (2) of Section 3 of the Act. Clause (c) of this subsection lay down that when a prisoner has been released on parole on the ground specified in clause (c) of subsection (1) i.e., for carrying out his agricultural pursuits, etc., the period of parole cannot exceed six weeks. In view of this, mandate of law, there is no question of any extention of parole being granted to the petitioner as he has concededly availed himself of the six weeks'' parole. The petition is, thus, dismissed as totally devoid of merit though with no order as to costs. He is directed to surrender to the jail authorities forthwith.