SARWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SARWAN Singh petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 IPC under orders dated 16.11.1990 of the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar. He allegedly applied for temporary release on parole for agricultural purposes but the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar refused to initiate the proceedings on the ground that the petitioner had already availed two weeks emergency parole under Section 3(1)(a) of the Punja Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 under the orders of this Court on the ground of illness of his mother. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court contending that the concerned authority had failed to exercise his authority under the law arbitrarily.

(2.) ON notice Shri Daulat Singh, Chief Welfare Officer had filed return denying that the petitioner had ever applied for release on parole and thus maintained that there was no question of rejection. It was further explained that the petitioner availed parole with effect from 3.1.1992 to 18.1.1992 in compliance with the High Court order dated 19.12.1991 in Crl. Misc. No 1342-M of 1991 and that he will be eligible to be released on parole after expiry of one year from his last release on parole as per policy instructions of the state Government.

(3.) THE instructions of the State Government contained in Punjab Government memorandum No. 4117-6JL-64/11107 dated the 28th March, 1964 figure at page 615 of the Jail Manual edited by Mr. V.K. Jindal. These instructions provide that in order to discourage frequent requests from prisoners for release on parole/furlough on one pretext or the other, it was decided by the Government that normally no request from a prisoner for his release on parole or furlough should be entertained until the expiry of one year since his last release on parole or furlough. However, it is further provided that in special and emergent cases, such application should be entertained as and when received by the Government for consideration whether the condition of one year should be waived off. Thus in view of these instructions, the parole for agricultural purposes can be considered as emergent one if under the circumstances of the given case there is no other adult male member in the family except the prisoner to look after the cultivation of the land. Consequently, the Superintendent, Central Jail is bound to initiate the proceedings for parole and it would be for the concerned authority appointed by the State Government to consider whether in fact, there is such emergency for allowing parole within a period of one year from the last parole or furlough enjoyed by the prisoner. But the factual matrix of the case reveals that the petitioner had not all applied to the Superintendent of the concerned Jail for release on parole for agricultural purposes.