AJMER SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL, HOSHIARPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Ajmer Singh son of Kishan Singh, praying for some relief for his son Mohan Singh, who is undergoing life imprisonment in District Jail, Hoshiarpur. The relief prayed for in the petition is to the following effect :

(2.) NOTICE of the petition having been issued, written statement in the shape of affidavit of Shri T.C. Katoch P.P.S (1), Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, on behalf of the respondent has been filed. The substance of the allegation of the petitioner is that Mohan Singh aforesaid was sentenced by the Sessions Judge, Ropar, on November 24, 1975 in a murder case. Since the date of his arrest, he has been continuously confined behind the bars, except for the period he was released on parole/furlough from time to time under the orders of the Punjab Government. It is further stated that the prisoner was entitled to the benefit of parole under the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and he was due for release on parole for 42 days with effect form December 2, 1984. This benefit was, however, denied to the prisoner because he was awarded a punishment on November 20, 1984. The petitioner is unable to produce a copy of the order imposing the said punishment as admittedly no such copy was supplied to him. According to the petitioner, there is nothing adverse against the prisoner except the aforesaid punishment awarded to him on November 20, 1984, on the basis of which he could be disentitled to the benefit of parole under the Act.

(3.) IN the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, it is averred in para 5 thereof that the allegation against the prisoner is that he sympathised with the other prisoners creating unruly atmosphere by raising anti-national slogans inside the Jail. It was also averred that under para 609 of the Punjab Jail Manual, "Abetting of Commission of any prison offence" is considered as a jail offence. The prisoner was, therefore, awarded a punishment of strict warning besides being ordered to be kept in a separate Cell, as envisaged under para 575 of the Manual. In regard to the copy of the order of punishment, it is stated in the reply that the prisoner had never asked for the copy. Hence, it was not supplied.