GHANPALSINGH RANJEETSINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 23-6-1983, the petitioner's case for release on probation has been considered by the Probation Board which recommended "postponement" of consideration of the question of his release, for a period of 4 years. Learned counsel or the petitioner has drawn our attention to the charge in the legal position that has since obtained.

(2.) IN case of Pancham Singh and of Bhagwan Singh decided on 27-6-1985 (in mp. No. 242/85 and 193/85 respectively), this court took the view that the Probation board is statutorily required to take a positive decision on any case placed for its consideration. Whether or not the prisoner is entitled to be released on probation on the date of consideration of his case should be the only question to which the Board has to address itself. The recommendation for "postponement", though contemplated in Form-A, appended to the M. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1964, framed under 1954 M. P. Act, obviously could not affect his right. We have considered the ambit and purport of the prisoner's right contemplated under the Act and the Rules. We have no doubt that there is no provision either in the Act or even in the Rules for postponement of consideration of the question. As no such express provision is to be found therein none can be read to defeat the object of the enactments. The penultimate column in Form A captioned on "recommendation of the Board" contains an itemised proforma of possible recommendations. While other items refer to the conditions for release, item No. 7 postulates 'rejection' and item No. 4, deferred release. Because in item No. 5 is stated "postponed till. if prisoner's conduct is satisfactory" reliance is placed thereon.

(3.) BUT we find it difficult to hold, in view of the provision of Sub-rule (5) of Rule that there can be any postponement of consideration of the prayer for release by probation Board for any specific period as the Board is required to meet once in every month to make recommendations. We must hold that no authority is conferred by item No. 5 of the said proforma of recommendations on the Probation Board to defer consideration of the prayer. It may reject the prayer giving reasons for the decision that would be examinable by the Court. The prisoner would also be able to renew his prayer as repeated prayers are not barred. There is ample and high authority for the proposition that statutory provisions advancing the cause of 'prison justice' must be so construed that the prisoner is able to avail effectively the benefit intended to be advanced to him. (See, Sunil Batra's case, AIR 1980 S. C. 1579 ).