LADHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are that Ladha Singh, petitioner was convicted for the offence of murder on 3.4.1981 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He had remained an under -trial prisoner for 8 months and 1 day; had served actual sentence of 7 years 12 days and had earned remission of 5 years 4 months. His case for temporary release on furlough. under Section 4 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, was duly recommended by the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Ferozepore. Eventually, the Inspector -General of Prisons, Punjab, rejected the recommendation on 19.3.1986 on what has been described as stereotyped grounds. The reason for rejecting the prayer was apprehension of breach of peace and danger to public peace and tranquillity on the basis of the report of the local police which was endorsed by the Superintendent of Police. The order rejecting prayer of the petitioner has been challenged as illegal, mala fide. arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioner has asserted that he had been of good conduct throughout his incarceration and the entire Village Panchayat had, strongly recommended his release on furlough.

(2.) THE State of Punjab filed a reply. The facts mentioned in the petition have not been disputed. In the reply the District Magistrate, Ferozepore, has stated that the local police did not recommend the application and the report of the local police was endorsed by Senior Superintendent of Police. He agreed with the views of the Senior Superintendent of Police, which led to the rejection of the Prayer.

(3.) MRS . Rekha Palli, learned counsel for the State of Punjab, took a preliminary objection that the prayer for release on furlough had, been rejected far back in March '1986 and the present petition had been filed in April, 1988 i.e. more than 2 years after the rejection. The circumstances in which the aforesaid delay was caused, had not been disclosed in the application and. therefore, the present Writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay.