Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Pal vs State Of Haryana An Others on 23 August, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. M. No.13781-M of 2010
Date of Decision:23.8.2010
Vijay Pal
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana an others
.... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, A.A.G. Haryana.
****
1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant 'B' class facility to the petitioner in view of the provisions contained in para 576-A (2) of the Punjab Jail Manual as the petitioner is an income tax payee and he was accustomed to superior mode of living.
Upon notice, reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5. As per the reply, the qualification of the petitioner is Senior Secondary. As per the Government Instruction for B-Class issued vide letter dated 25.5.1983, B-Class facility can be granted to prisoners on the basis of social/political status and not on the basis of their income or land revenue being paid by them.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said instruction cannot override the provisions of Punjab Jail Manual. There is merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Para 576- A of the Punjab Jail Manual reads as under:
Crl. M. No.13781-M of 2010 -2-
"RULE FRAMED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNDER SECTION 60 OF THE PRISIONS ACT, 1894, TO REGULATE THE CLASSIFICATION AND TREATMENT OF CONVICTED AND UNDER-TRIAL PRISIONERS.
---------
SECTION 1.- RULES FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF CONVICTED AND UNDER-TRIAL PRISONERS.
576-A(1) Convicted persons shall be divided into three classes, namely a,B, and C. Class. 'A' will contain all prisoners who are-
(a) Non-habitual prisoners of good character.
(b) by social status, education and habit of life been accustomed to a superior mode of living, and
(c) have not been convicted of-
(i) offence involving elements of cruelty, moral degradation or personal greed;
(ii)serious or premeditated violence;
(iii)serious offences against property;
(iv)offences relating to the possession of explosives, fire arms and other dangerous weapons with the object of committing an offence or of enabling an offence to be committed;
(v)abetment or incitement of offences failing within these sub- clauses.
(2) Class 'B' will consist of prisoners who by social status, education or habit of the life have been accustomed to a superior mode of living. Habitual prisoners may be included in this class by order of the Inspector-General of Prisons."
The said rules have statutory force. Once the same has statutory force, it cannot be superseded by issuing administrative instructions.
This Court in the cases of Surinder Kumar Sehgal v. State of Haryana 1996(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 228, Naib Singh v. State of Punjab 1993(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 514 and Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab 1996(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 770 while relying on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Sadhu Singh and others v. State of Punjab 1984(2) Crl. M. No.13781-M of 2010 -3- RecentCR 83 allowed the petitions observing that a prisoner, who is an income tax payee cannot be denied B-Class facility on the basis of the instructions as the same are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
This Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab 1996 (2) RCR (Criminal) 770 held in para 3 as under:
" There is no dispute that is being raised that petitioner was an income tax payee. The sole controversy is as to if para 576-A(2) of the Punjab Jail Manual has been superseded by the Government instructions or not. This question had been considered by this Court in the case of Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993(2) RCR
514. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sadhu Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1984(2) RCR 83, This court held:-
"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I hold that para 576-A of the Punjab Jail Manual is amongst those paragraphs of manual against which a black line (side line) is in existence and, therefore, this paragraph has the force of law and the State Government had no jurisdiction to supersede this para by issuing executive instructions."
It is not disputed that the petitioner is an income tax payee. Thus, in view of the provisions referred to above, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to B Class facility.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to extend B Class facilities to the petitioner for the remaining tenure of his imprisonment.
23.8.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE