Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lekh Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 7 February, 2011
Crl. W. P. No. 1206 of 2010 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-
Crl. W. P. No. 1206 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 7.2.2011
Lekh Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. ... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Ms. B.P.K.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S.Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.
Gurdev Singh, J (oral) FIR No.86 dated 19.6.2007 under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Julkan District Patiala. He was tried for that offence and after conviction awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. While undergoing that imprisonment, he made an application to the jail authorities for the grant of parole for six weeks to enable him to perform the agricultural operations in his fields situated in the village in the State of Rajasthan on the ground that he was an agriculturist and his only source of livelihood and that of his family was agriculture and that there was no other member of his family to do the agricultural operations in the fields. His case was recommended by the Gram Panchayat of his village. His case was sent to the District Magistrate, Alwar (Rajasthan), vide letter dated 19.5.2009. His conduct in Crl. W. P. No. 1206 of 2010 (O&M) -2- the jail was good and he never committed any jail offence and was entitled to be released on parole. However his case was rejected on the ground that he had been convicted and sentenced under the Act. Now he has filed the present criminal writ for issuance of a direction to the respondents to release him on parole for six weeks to enable him to perform the agricultural operations on the ground that his case could not have been rejected merely on the ground that he has been convicted and sentenced for an offence under the Act.
I have heard learned counsel for both the sides.
The facts, as stated in the petition, have not been disputed. In the reply filed by the respondents they have not contended that the petitioner was not entitled to be released on parole or that any other ground was recorded for refusing that benefit to him.
According to Section 3(1)(c) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 1962, the State Government may in consultation with the District Magistrate and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed release the prisoner temporarily on parole for a period of six weeks where such a release is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation on his land and there is no friend or member of the family to help him in this behalf in his absence.
According to Section 6 of that Act a prisoner is not entitled to be so released, if on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State Government or the maintenance Crl. W. P. No. 1206 of 2010 (O&M) -3- of public order.
Thus, the only ground for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole was that his release was likely to endanger the security of the State Government or the maintenance of the public order. When he was otherwise found to be entitled to release on parole, his prayer was not to be rejected merely on the ground that he was convicted and sentenced for the offence under the Act.
In the result this writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the case of that petitioner in the light of the provisions of the said Act and to decide his case for being released on parole afresh. The State Government is to pass the order within two months of the receipt of the copy of this order.
February 7, 2011 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge