Court on its own motion vs Liaqat

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.

The respondent was released on emergency parole on account of the ailment of his mother till 2531988. He filed criminal miscellaneous application on 23.3.1988 for extension of parole on the ground that his mother was still admitted in the hospital and at least one person is needed to look after her. On this application, parole period was extended till 641988 with the direction to surrender on 741988. The respondent then filed Cr. M. No. 83 of 1988, and the parole period was again extended till 6.5. 1988. Thereafter, he filed Cr. M. No. 122 of 1988 on the ground that his mother is to be operated upon and that he had no other brother and that he is the only male member to look after his ailing mother. The Superintendent Central Jail, Karnal filed written statement to the effect that the respondentprisoner had two other real brothers and father to look after his ailing mother. Under these circumstances on 6.5.1988 Ujagar Singh J. (as he then was) issued showcause notice to the petitioner as to why proceedings under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be not taken against him, for filing false affidavit.

In answer to the said notice, the petitioner has filed reply, contending that he is an illiterate person and that his father is very old and confined to bed whereas his other brothers are residing separately from him and his parents. He has stated that there was no other male member in the family to look after his ailing mother.

I have heard the respondent in person who has been produced by Som Parkash H.C. No. 96 of Police Lines, Karnal as well as Mr. Rahgbir Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the State. Admittedly, the petitioner is an illiterate person and while giving affidavit intended to instruct the person who was drafted it on his instructions that there was no other adult male member to look after his ailing mother and his brothers were residing separately from him. It appears that for all practical purposes, he had ruled out his brothers in connection with looking after his ailing mother. Similarly, he did not consider his old bedridden father capable of doing this work. It appears that the scribe of this affidavit had gone a little beyond his instructions by concluding, that the petitioner has no other brother. Thus it cannot be said to be a case of that type whether deliberately or intentionally false affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in order to hoodwink the Court. On the other hand, the possibility that the scribe had misunderstood the instructions of the petitioner cannot be ruled.

Resultantly, notice issued to the respondent is ordered to be discharged. The respondent has been entrusted to the custody of aforesaid Som Parkash H.C.

JUDGMENT accordingly.