GOVERDHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988. Notice on this petition was issued to the respondents on 6.11.1995 and the reply has been filed. In short the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal vide order dated 18.3.1994 and since then he has been in jail. Petitioner owns about 2 acres of agricultural land in Village Gagsina and family members of the petitioner are dependent upon the earning from this land. Wife of the petitioner is stated to be sick and infirm and is not able to look after the children and the land in question. Petitioner on 28.8.1995 made a request to the respondent to grant him benefit of temporary release for the agricultural purposes under Section 3(1)(c) and (d) of the said Act. The petitioner was informed that the request of the petitioner for release on parole has been rejected by respondent No. 1, District Magistrate, Karnal. The counsel had requested for copy of the order which was supplied and has been annexed as Annexure P-1 with the petition. Vide Annexure P-1, rejection of the competent authority was conveyed to the petitioner and it is based upon the letter dated 28.7.1995. It is relevant to reproduce the relevant portion which reads as under :-

(2.) AS is apparent from the above, the ground for rejecting the request of the petitioner for release on parole is that some untoward incident may take place if the petitioner is released. This ground appears to be ambiguous and lacks reasoning and even provide application of mind. Section 3 of the above Act gives certain benefit to the convicts, who are undergoing their sentence in jails. This benefit under the scheme of the Act is a well considered legislation to enable the convicts to come out of jails for the purposes specified in the said section. The legislation has a definite object as it has even introduced clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 to cover cases which are otherwise not specifically provided for in other clauses of the section. Of course limitations to exercise powers under the Act are specified in Section 6 of the said Act. The consideration by the authorities have to be an objective satisfaction and the request of the detenu cannot be declined as a matter of routine by introducing such vague reasons. The real purpose is to provide benefit to the convict as per the scheme of the Act and to implement its provisions to achieve the object and not to frustrate the legislative intent. The reason which has been given in this order itself shows the non- application of mind. Some valid plausible reason which must fall within the four corners as postulated under Section 6 of the Act must be passed. It cannot be an order which is unreasoned, vague, indefinite, unexplainable and not in conformity with the restrictions stipulated in Section 6 of the Act. Such an order would be bad and would apparently suffer from the infirmity of non-application of mind. Application of mind is an essential pre-requisite for passing of such orders. Passing of a proper reasoned order upon application of mind is now the accepted basis even on administrative action and orders.

(3.) THE counsel for the State has fairly conceded that in the reply nothing more has been stated than what was stated in the impugned order. Thus the respondents have failed to satisfy the Court as to how the impugned order satisfies the application of mind and gives a plausible reasoning within the limits imposed upon the respondents under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioner has specifically given details of his land and the fact that his wife is sick, infirm and cannot look after the agricultural land and there is nobody else to carry on the agricultural activities in his place. These allegations to a great extent have been even admitted in reply/affidavit filed in behalf of the respondents.