Sikandar Lal vs State

B.S. Yadav, J.

The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that Kuljit Singh was undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Ludhiana. Under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short the Act), he was granted parole for three weeks, subject to certain conditions which were incorporated in the warrant for temporary release. One of the conditions was that before release, the convict was to furnish a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with two sureties in the like amount for faithful observance of the conditions specified in the release warrant. From the file it is not clear if the convict furnished the personal bond, or not. However, Sikandar Lal petitioner and Charanjit Singh were the two sureties, each of whom submitted a bond in the sum of Rs. 10000/ for the observance of the conditions of the release warrant. On the expiry of the parole period, Kuljit Singh did not surrender to custody. The Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana issued notice to Charanjit Singh and to the present petitioner, Sikandar Lal to show cause why the amount of Rs. 10,000/ should not be forfeited. Sikandar Lal appeared and made a statement to the effect that he had searched for the convict, but he was not traceable and he had lodged a first Information Report to that effect. He also asked for time to pay Rs. 10,000/. During enquiry, it was found that the other surety, Charanjit Singh had not filed the surety bond and in fact, one Yadvinder Singh had impersonated him. A case was ordered to be registered against Yadvinder Singh and some other persons. Vide order dated 27.5.1980, the District Magistrate, Ludhiana passed orders about the forfeiture of the purity bond filed by Sikandar Lal and ordered him to pay the amount of the bond i.e. Rs. 10,000/.

Against that order, Sikander Lal, filed an appeal which was heared by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana who held that the order passed by the learned District Magistrate was in order. He, however, reduced the amount of penalty to Rs. 7,000/. Sikander Lal has now filed the present revision petition.

The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the temporary release warrant is on the file and it shows that a column is meant in it for the signature and thumbimpression of the prisoner about acknowledging the receipt of the above warrant and about under standing the conditions specified in it and acceptance of them and that Kuljit Singh prisoner never accepted the conditions imposed upto him at the time of temporary release and therefore, as the principal did not accept the terms, his sureties are also into bound by the conditions specified in the temporary release warrant. He further argued that in accordance with the terms contained in that warrant, the prisoner was also required to execute a bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/ and there is nothing on the file to show that he had filed any such bond. I am of the opinion that the above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. The correspondence on the file shows that the release warrant was signed by the Deputy Secretary to Government Punjab, Chandigarh and it was sent to the District Magistrate, Ludhiana. The surety bonds were filed before the Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana and those were accepted. Those surety bonds were sent by the District Magistrate, Ludhana to the Superintendent Jail for releasing the petitioner after obtaining personal bona from him. As the present file relates to the proceedings taken against the surety, the personal bond taken form the prisoner might not have been attached with the present file.

As far as the question of the acceptance of the conditions of release warrant is concerned, rule 7 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary release) Rules, 1963 provides that before a prisoner is allowed to leave the jail on temporary release under the Act, he shall be informed by the Superintendent Jail about the date on which he has to surrender himself to jail and of the consequences of his failure to do so, as provided under sections 8 and 9 of the Act. Official acts are presumed to have been regularly performed. Therefore, it must be held that Kuljit Singh was informed by the Superintendent Jail that he was to surrender himself to jail on a certain date. As the prisoner accepted the release, therefore, even if he did not sign the column meant for that purpose in the release warrant, it will be deemed that he had accepted the condition that after temporary release, he was to surrender to jail on a particular date.

Even if for argument''s sake it is held that the petitioner, Kuljit Singh was not informed about the fact that he was to surrender on a particular date, by executing a bond, the petitioner entered into a contract with the Government about the due observance of the conditions imposed by it upon the prisoner at the time of temporary release. In the surety bond, endorsement number and its date, as recorded in the copy of the release warrant which was sent to the District Magistrate, are mentioned. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now say that he was not aware of the conditions imposed upon the prisoner under the temporary release warant. The contract of the petitioner with the Government was independent of the contract which the prisoner was to enter into with the Government by executing a personal bond. In the surety bond, the date on which Kuljit Singh was to be released temporarily and the date on which the period was to come to an end are mentioned. Therefore, the petitioner by entering into a bond with the Government undertook that after the expiry of the period, the prisoner was to surrender to custody.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Gurdial v. The State of Haryana, 1981 C.L.R. 80 to show that the penalty cannot be imposed after forfeiture of the bond if it is vague. That case related to a bond which was defective in nature. In the bond the name of the Court in which the accused was required to appear was not inserted