SADA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sada Singh, convict undergoing life sentence in Central Jail, Ferozepur, applied for his temporary release under section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, for four weeks in order to effect necessary repairs to his Kachcha house. His case having not been decided by State authorities, he has brought this petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) In para 4 of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the District Magistrate, Ferozepur, reported that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, had not recommended the release of the prisoner on parole on the ground that the complainant party apprehends danger in case the convict is released on parole and, therefore, he agreeing with the said report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, did not recommend the case of the prisoner for release on parole. My attention has been drawn towards the provisions of section 6 or the Act, which reads as under: 6. Notwithitanding anything contained in sections 3 and 4,no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act, if, on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.T An analytical scrutiny of the abovesaid provision shows that to order to disentitle a prisoner from securing his temporary release (i) there should be a report of the District Magistrate (emphasis supplied), and (ii) the Government or an Officer authorised by it in this behalf should be satisfied that (a) it is likely to endanger the security of the State, or (b), it is likely to endanger the maintenance of public order.

(3.) When the facts and circumstances of this case are given the above acid test, it is found that there is no report of the District Magistrate on record. The one reproduced in para 4 of the reply purports to, have been signed by some officer other than the District Magistrate. Even in this report, it is not mentioned that the release of the prisoner on parole was likely to endanger the security of the state or the maintenance of public order. No order of rejection of the representation of the prisoner for release on parole has been placed on the record. Therefore, it cannot be ascertained as to who had passed it and whether the said person was TTan officer authorised by the State GovernmentT in this behalf or not.