JOGA SINGH Vs. B S DHALIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - One Sada Singh, father of the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in the Central Jail, Patiala. He filed criminal writ petition 833 of 1987 claiming benefit of pre-mature release on the basis of the instructions issued by the Punjab Government on 20-8-1986. The said criminal writ petition was disposed of by Ujagar Singh, J. by his order dated 11-12-1987 (Annexure RI). A short release order dated 13-12-1987 was sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, respondent herein. The respondent insisted on being furnished a complete copy of the order. It was officially sent to him on 12-1-1988. Another copy of the complete order was furnished to him by the relatives of the prisoner on 18-1-1988. On behalf of the petitioner, a telegram dated 19-1-1987 was also sent to the respondent informing him about the order passed by the High Court in the criminal writ petition and requesting for the release of prisoner Sada Singh. In spite of the above efforts, the respondent did not release the prisoner and thereby committed wilful disobedience of the order of the Court.

(2.) In the reply, the respondent stated that he received copy of the order on 20-1-1988. He immediately got in touch with the Deputy Secretary, dealing with jails and sought his advice. The Inspector-General, Prisons who was a party to the criminal writ petition applied for permission of the Government to file special leave petition (SLP) against order of the High Court, which permission was ultimately granted to him on 2T11988. The S.L.P. was filed in the Supreme Court on 28-1-1988. It came up for hearing and an interim order was passed on 20-2-1988 to the effect that if the order passed in the criminal writ petition had not been given effect to, the operation thereof was stayed. Ultimately vide order dated 5-5-1988, the S. L.P. was allowed. The order passed by this Court in the criminal writ petition was set aside and the State Government was directed to consider the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release as expeditiously as possible.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the release order was categorical in its terms and was passed as far back as on 11-12-1987. Its copy was duly served on the respondent towards the middle of January 1988, both officially as well as through relatives of the prisoner. It was pointed out that even according to the respondentTs own admission he received copy of the order on 20-1-1988. With regard to the plea that he got in touch with the higher authorities in order to seek their advice and also whether the matter was to be taken to the Supreme Court, the learned Counsel pointed out that admittedly no stay was obtained from this Court or from the Supreme Court and in the absence of any stay order, it was not open to the respondent to plead that he took time for having advice of the senior officers and for filing the S.L.P. in the Supreme Court.