GURMIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE convict Gurmit Singh, whose request for grant of parole under Section 3(1)(c) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisons (Temporary Release) Act to enable him to perform agricultural pursuits in his fields, on being refused by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh vide letter dated 31.3.1994, has preferred this Criminal Misc. in this court.

(2.) THE convict Gurmit Singh (hereinafter to be referred to as the petitioner) stood convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide order dated 14.11.1992, and was awarded imprisonment for life. The petitioner is undergoing his sentence of imprisonment in Borstal Jail, Ludhiana since 22.11.1992, and while taking the benefit of the Punjab Good Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act as contained in Section 3(1)(c) of the said Act, an application was moved by him for his release on temporary parole for six weeks for performing agricultural pursuits in his land situate in Village Sangu Dhon Block Muktsar. The matter within the provisions of Section 3(1)(c) of the said Act was taken up for consideration by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh, who sought the report of the District Magistrate, The District Magistrate reported that if the convict the released on parole, the complainant and the witness apprehend danger to their life for his reason only the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police concerned did not recommend the case of the petitioner for temporary release within the ambit of Section 3(1)(c) of the Act.

(3.) HEAD learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Grewal, AAG (Punjab) and have given thoughtful consideration to the documents on the file. 4. At the outset, as far as the terminology of Section 3 of the said Act is concerned, it is provided that the State Government in consultation with the District Magistrate or any other officer appointed in this behalf, by notification and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, is empowered to release the convict temporarily for a period of specified in sub -section (2) from the prison with certain stipulation laid down in sub -sections (a) to (d). The case of the petitioner falls within the condition laid down under clause (c) of Section 3 of the said Act and the Inspector General of Prisons has to determine the matter as a quasi judicial authority and he has to consider the case of every convict who seeks parole on merits of each case, having regard to the justice in mind whether the convict required parole for the purpose as laid down in the Section. He cannot by -pass the Section saying that there is apprehension of danger to the complainant and the witnesses if the convict is released on parole. It is the duty of District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police to protect the lives of the citizens if any apprehension or danger, the complainant or the witnesses shows from the release of the accused on parole. The law laid down is that no body can be released on parole if his release is detrimental to the security of the country or there is likelihood that his release in any way will endanger the security or integrity of the country. The mere allegation that the complainant and the witnesses apprehend danger to their life, cannot be taken as a good ground for refusing the benefit of temporary parole to the petitioner for a specified period as laid down in the Section. Hence, the order passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, is set aside. He is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and to pass the appropriate orders within 10 days from the receipt of copy of this order. A copy of the order be provided to the counsel for the petitioner by tomorrow on payment of costs.