SIKANDAR LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts leading to this revision petition are that Kuljit Singh was undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Ludhiana. Under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (for short the Act), he was granted parole for three weeks, subject to certain conditions which were incorporated in the warrant for temporary release. One of the conditions was that before release, the convict was to furnish a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the like amount for faithful observance of the conditions specified in the release warrant. From the file it is not clear if the convict furnished the personal bond, or not. However, Sikandar Lal petitioner and Charanjit Singh were the two sureties, each of whom submitted a bond in the sum of Rs. 10000/- for the observance of the conditions of the release warrant. On the expiry of the parole period, Kuljit Singh did not surrender to custody. The Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana issued notice to Charanjit Singh and to the present petitioner, Sikandar Lal to show cause why the amount of Rs. 10,000/- should not be forfeited. Sikandar Lal appeared and made a statement to the effect that he had searched for the convict, but he was not traceable and he had lodged a first Information Report to that effect. He also asked for time to pay Rs. 10,000/-. During enquiry, it was found that the other surety, Charanjit Singh had not filed the surety bond and in fact, one Yadvinder Singh had impersonated him. A case was ordered to be registered against Yadvinder Singh and some other persons. Vide order dated 27.5.1980, the District Magistrate, Ludhiana passed orders about the forfeiture of the purity bond filed by Sikandar Lal and ordered him to pay the amount of the bond i.e. Rs. 10,000/-.

(2.) AGAINST that order, Sikander Lal, filed an appeal which was heared by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana who held that the order passed by the learned District Magistrate was in order. He, however, reduced the amount of penalty to Rs. 7,000/-. Sikander Lal has now filed the present revision petition.

(3.) AS far as the question of the acceptance of the conditions of release warrant is concerned, rule 7 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary release) Rules, 1963 provides that before a prisoner is allowed to leave the jail on temporary release under the Act, he shall be informed by the Superintendent Jail about the date on which he has to surrender himself to jail and of the consequences of his failure to do so, as provided under sections 8 and 9 of the Act. Official acts are presumed to have been regularly performed. Therefore, it must be held that Kuljit Singh was informed by the Superintendent Jail that he was to surrender himself to jail on a certain date. As the prisoner accepted the release, therefore, even if he did not sign the column meant for that purpose in the release warrant, it will be deemed that he had accepted the condition that after temporary release, he was to surrender to jail on a particular date.