SADHU RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order of the releasing authority, whereby it failed to either allow or reject his :application for parole made on 3-9-1988. The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment following his conviction in case F.I.R. No. 49 dated 26-3-1987, P S Patran District Patiala, under section 302/34, I.P.C. His appeal against conviction and sentence was admitted to hearing by a Division Beach of this Court on 7.1.1988 and the same is pending. The petitioner was on emergency parole under section 3(1)(b) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 for the period, 16-6-1988 to 4-7-1988, as his wife Smt. Sardaran Bai, aged 60 years, was seriously ill. Thereafter he surrendered to his custody on 4-7-1988. It appears that the condition of his wife worsened and Dr. S.C. Garg, Assistant Professor (Medicines) of Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, issued certificate, Annexure P-1 dated 1-9-1988 that the said Smt. Sardaran Bai was suffering from hypertension and unangine with chronic depression. He, described her condition as serious and advised hospitalization. On the basis of the said certificate and in the absence of any adult male member in the family, who could look after the said lady, he made a fresh application for parole on 3-9-1988. The authorities, however, failed to decide the application one way or the other. The aforesaid action of the authorities has been challenged as unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Constitution. Prayer of the petitioner was duly supported by the Panchayat of the village concerned in their writing Annexure P. 2.

(2.) IN response to notice appearance was put in on behalf of Advocate General, Punjab, as far back as 28-9-1988 and time was taken for filing a reply. The case was adjourned twice and reply has not been filed even today. It will be seen that almost one month has passed since Advocate-General put in appearance in this Court and I see no justification for granting another adjournment for filing the reply. The very purpose of seeking parole will be defeated if the matter is kept pending.

(3.) ACCORDING to government instructions normally parole is not granted more than once during the course of one calendar year, but this is subject to exception in favour of emergent and extraordinary cases. I his case falls within that exception. Orderd accordingly.