KARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks extension of the parole period on the ground that his wife was admitted in the hospital for Bronchial Asthma since 20.2.1996, and she would be under treatment in the hospital. The certificate issued in that respect shows that Jasbir Kaur wife of the petitioner/prisoner was admitted in the hospital on 20.2.1996 for treatment for acute attack of Bronchial Asthma, and she remained in the hospital. That certificate further indicates that formerly she was in the hospital from 15.1.1996 to 5.2.1996. It appears that thereafter she was again admitted on 20.2.1996 till the date of issuance of certificate i.e. on 22.2.1996. The certificate does not indicate further possible duration of treatment by admitting her in the hospital. The doctor also does not say in the certificate that she is required to be attended by some relative. While in the hospital, obviously she would be attended and nursed by the staff in the hospital. At any rate, since the certificate attached with the petition does not indicate the further required duration as indoor patient in the hospital, and does not clarify that the attendance of a relative was necessary, it is a matter of again a question mark as to whether the parole period should be extended so as enable the prisoner to be at the bed -side of his wife if she continues to be indoor patient in the hospital.

(2.) THERE is another legal snag in extension of the period of parole. Section 3(2) (a) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, it is stated that the maximum period for parole would be two weeks on the ground of serious illness of the members of the prisoner's family. In respect of this period indicated in the Act, there seems to be rather controversy. The counsel for the petitioner placed before me Jail manual published by the "Legal Publications, Chandigarh" (1987 Edition) and another book, Vol.8 "Local Laws Manual" published by "Singla Law Agency," (1993 Edition (and brought to my notice that in both these books the period under clause 2(a) of Section 3 of the said Act is shown as four weeks of parole. On the other hand, A.A.G., Punjab, has placed before me a copy of the said Act as attested by the Deputy Superintendent Central Jail, Jalandhar. That copy is a reproduction of the said Act published in the Govt. Gezette. In that copy the said period is shown as two weeks. It may be mentioned that in respect of other clauses, the period of parole is therefore, escalated to four weeks and six weeks, as the case may be it, therefore, clearly appears that while passing the Act, a conscious application was made for fixing the period of parole in respect of each category of reasons. The said period can be fixed by the State Govt. It was submitted by the counsel that in view of the circumstances appearing in this case, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may extend the period of parole. In my opinion, the powers under Section 482 cannot be exercised to give relief beyond the legislative limits. That would amount to legislating altogether different Act. That is not contemplated while dealing with petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

(3.) HOWEVER , I would say that in the event the petitioner submits another application for parole on the ground that his wife is seriously ill, the concerned authorities shall consider that application on merits within 15 days from the date of receipt of such application. With these observations, this petition is disposed of.