KEWAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was tried in a case registered vide F.I.R.No. 193 dated June 6, 1979 at Police Station, Baghapurana, under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, convicted the petitioner under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded him R.I. for seven years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for six months, both sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal in the High Court which was ultimately dismissed vide judgment dated April 26, 1982. The petitioner who was then on bail, surrendered to custody on July 30, 1982. He then filed a Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court and was released on bail vide order dated August 30, 1982. This appeal was dismissed vide order dated February 4, 1993 and while the conviction was maintained, the period of sentence was reduced to three years' R.I. from seven years' R.I. The petitioner once again surrendered to custody on April 14, 1993 and has been in detention since then. While undergoing sentence, the petitioner made an application to the authorities concerned that he was entitled to release on probation under Section 2 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners' Probational Release Act, 1926, hereinafter called 'the Act' and when no decision was taken thereon, filed a Criminal Misc. No.4934-M of 1993 in this Court, which was disposed of vide Annexure P-3 dated September 15, 1993, with a direction to the authorities to decide the case of the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The petitioner was, thereafter, informed that his case has been considered and rejected, but as no reasons were forthcoming, he has once again approached this Court by this petition. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the explanation given is that the case of the petitioner has been considered in terms of the directive issued by this Court and rejected vide order dated November 23, 1993 on the basis of the report of the District Authorities which was that the release of the convict on probation was not to be recommended as the aggrieved party and the witnesses apprehended danger at the hands of the convict, who happened to be a dangerous person.

(2.) MR .V.K. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two arguments in this Court, firstly, it has been urged by him that reading of Section 2 of the Act and Rule 9 of the Good Conduct Prisoners' Probational Release Rules, 1927, was an indicative of the fact that the probation under the Act could be granted except in the clauses mentioned in Rule 9. On facts, he stated that the petitioner remained on bail for almost 12 years after his conviction and no untoward incident had taken place involving him and as such the report of the District Authorities that the Complainant party or the witnesses apprehended danger at his hands, was without any basis.

(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the authorities concerned to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his release under the Act within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the petitioner would be released.