GURNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relates to the release of petitioner on furlough for three weeks and that he has been wrongly and illegally denied the benefit under Section 4 of the Punjab Good Conduct Pensioners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962.

(2.) ACCORDING to the averments in the petition, the petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by Sessions Judge, Faridkot on 28th of September 1982 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The case for grant of furlough to the petitioner was rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab on 14th of January 1987. Thereafter the petitioner applied for the supply of copy of order of rejection but the same was not supplied to him. It was further pleaded that the petitioner again moved the jail authorities for the grant of furlough in July 1988 for execution of repairs to his house and settlement of other domestic affairs but the said request was declined. Again case for grant of furlough was recommended by the authorities and in February 1089 furlough has again been rejected and that the 'said order' is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

(3.) RELIEF of grant of furlough has mainly been opposed on behalf of the State firstly on the ground that there are adverse reports of the district authorities. No copy of any such report has been filed alongwith the written reply and as such the basis on which those adverse reports are based cannot be considered. In these circumstance the alleged adverse report received from the district authorities would not constitute any legal bar in granting furlough to the petitioner. The second plea raised on behalf of the State was that the petitioner committed serious jail offence in August, 1986 and got the punishment for the same. However, in the written reply filed on behalf of the State, it is not specifically mentioned as to whether the said jail punishment was subsequently placed for scrutiny by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot. Apart from that, the jail offence relate to a remote period and according to the instructions contained in memo No. 30321-GI/WO 4/B G. 2 dated 14th of September 1964 no request for grant of furlough normally is to be entertained until the expiry of one year since his last release on parole/furlough. It is mentioned in the said instructions that in special and emergent cases as and when received by the Govt for consideration even this condition of one year can be waived off. Obviously more than one year has passed since the jail punishment was inflicted and as such there would be so legal bar in considering the question of granting furlough to the petitioner.