MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India relates to grant of premature release to the petitioner-detenu on the ground that he is over 70 years old, totally invalid and infirm prisoner suffering from high blood pressure, heart disease and is almost blind. His left hand is also abnormal. It was further pleaded that the petitioner-detenu was declared as invalid prisoner by the Medical Officer of the jail, and that the detenu is totally infirm and incapacitated prisoner. Medical Board consisting of various specialists visited Central Jail, Amritsar, on or about 14th of June, 1988 and after conducting medical examination of the detenu recommended the release of the detenu on the ground that he was severely hypertensive B.P. was 190/115 nmhg. and he is a case of ischemic heart disease and contracture (persistent muscular contraction or shortening due to spasm or paralysis of muscles etc.) of left hand and wrist, immature senile, cataract both eyes, and was entitled to be released on pre-mature release as per instructions issued by the State Government on 21.8.1986 (Annexure P-1) and subsequent instructions dated 27.4.1988 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) DR . Ajaib Singh, Officiating Civil Surgeon, Amritsar and Chairman of the Medical Board admitted in his written reply that the petitioner is about 75 years old, suffering from severely hypertensive Blood Pressure 190/115 mmhg. He is a case of Ischemic heart disease contracture left hand and wrist, immature senile, contract both eyes, and, his case was recommended for pre-mature release being inform and incapacitated due to illness, and old age. This aspect of the case was also admitted by the State in its reply. However, it was pleaded that a back reference was made on 19.4.1989 because blood pressure can be kept under control through administration of medicines, and cataract can be cured through surgical intervention and that contracture of left hand does not mean that he had become incapacitated. It was further pleaded that the detenu may be handicapped to some extent in the performance of functions, but he cannot be termed as infirm on that basis, and that the conclusions by the State Government were not arbitrary.

(3.) THERE is no specific mention in the written-rely filed either of the respondents that the detenu was given any such medical help or that at present his condition has improved or that the detenu is not incapacitated due to illness. In the absence of any such plea or subsequent report by any medical specialists concerning the present condition of the detenu, the earlier opinion and recommendation of the Medical Board (Annexure P-3) would stand, and cannot be permitted to be brushed aside.