SAIBAL GANGULY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the matters were taken up on the basis of the representations dated 5.6.2007 and 6.11.2008 received to the following affect.

(2.) A convict, by name, Pawan Garh, who was found guilty of offence under Section 302/34, IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh and serving sentence in Central Jail, Dibrugarh, was enlarged on parole on 17.8.2005. In terms of the release order, he was required to report back to the prison on 17.9.2005. However, he did not return after availing the period of parole. Be it stated here that the said convict is still not traceable. In the representation dated 5.6.2007 received from one Shri Saibal Ganguly, Director, Harishpur Tea Company (P.) Ltd., Dibrugarh, it has been stated that the said convict has been threatening the family members of the victim in the case in question, namely. Sessions Case No. 49/1995. It was stated in the representation that the matter was brought to the notice of the Inspector General of Prison, Assam, vide communication dated 12.5.2006, but to no effect. It was further stated in the representation that the matter was brought to the notice of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, vide petition dated 27.11.2006, who in turn called for a report from the Superintendent of Central Jail, Dibrugarh. The report furnished by the Superintendent confirmed that the convict, who was released on 17.8.2005 for one month, did not return to the Prison. Unfortunately, the Superintendent instead of taking concrete and firm action in the matter imposed the burden on the representationist to approach the Officer-in-Charge, Namrup Police Station for the arrest of the convict.

(3.) Three street roughs, namely, Babia, Bidhan and Sumon were found guilty of killing one TUTUN on the night of 14.11.1988. They were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Silchar in Sessions case No. 67/92. The judgment of conviction of sentence was delivered on 20.3.1996 and the same was affirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 19.8.1999 passed in criminal appeal No. 62/1996. According to the representation, the three criminals have been made the judiciary and Jail administration, a mockery, with their money power. It is alleged that since 20.3.1996 and till the date of filling the representation (13 years), they were enjoying the well-furnished hospital beds and all amenities of luxury like TV, Video etc. and above all English drinks two times a day. It was further alleged that not for a single hour since 20.3.1996, the said convicts were put in jail barrack, where they should have been leaving aside the stipulation of rigorous imprisonment. According to the representation, the convicts come out at 8'O clock in the morning and move around freely threatening others who do not show respect to them and return to jail at 5'O clock in the evening. The representationist questioned as to why such privileges are not extended to other convicts. As per the allegation made in the representation, each one of the convict pays Rs. 5,000 per week to the Jail authorities for extending such benefits to them. Accordingly, a request was made in the representation to make an enquiry into the matter.