SAKTTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition was filed with the averments, that the petitioner approached the jail authorities for his release on parole under section 3(1)(c) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act. 1962 for agricultural purposes by a letter sent through registered post dated 27-3-1989. He failed to elicit any reply. There was no, other adult mate member who could undertake agricultural operation and therefore, he challenged the aforesaid action of the authorities by this writ petition.

(2.) in reply the categorical stand of the respondents was that the petitioner had not made any request to the jail authorities for the grant of six weeks parole. On behalf of the petitioner, a photostat copy of the application purported to have been filed by Gurpal Kaur, wife of the petitioner was produced. The respondents were, therefore, directed to place, on record the affidavit of Supdt. Central Jail, Amritsar, with regard to the fact whether petitioner's wife had made any such request. In compliance with the said direction affidavit of Mr. Dhanna Singh, Chief Probation officer, dated 26.12.1989 was placed on record. In the affidavit, it was, admitted that the request was received from the wife of the Petitioner on 28-3-89 which was declined as the petitioner was not eligible to be released on parole according to law. The other ground given for rejection was, that the petitioner, had already availed of two paroles one w.e.f. 31.10.89 to 29.11.88 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1861 of 1938 in connection with the marriage of his sister and the second One from 15-1288 to 13-1-89 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 18901 of 1989 for the purpose of repairs to his house. According to the relevant instructions, grant of earlier parole during the preceding 12 months is not a complete bar to the case for second parole being considered. In fact, the instructions make it clear that in suitable and exceptional cases prayer for parole can be considered. The duty of the Superintendent Jail was, therefore, to forward the prayer for the orders of the releasing authority. Rejection at the level of the Superintendent Central Jail is, therefore, unsustainable and is, therefore, set aside. It is directed that the aforesaid prayer shall be disposed of by recording a reasoned order within two months from today. The petition is disposed of in these terms. A copy of this order be sent to respondent No. 2 for information and compliance.