AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
Petitioner seeks that he be provided B Class facilities. He was arrested on 25.10.1992 and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala on 21.7.1995. He claims that he is entitled to the benefit of paragraph 576A(2) of the Punjab Jail Manual because he is used to enjoy a higher standard of living as he is an income tax payee.
Reply has been filed in which it is not disputed that petitioner has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 302/307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is denied that petitioner is entitled to B Class facilities because contention raised is that para 576A(2) of the Punjab Jail Manual has been superseded by the Government instructions issued from time to time.
There is no dispute that is being raised that petitioner was an income tax payee. The sole controversy is as to if para 576A(2) of the Punjab Jail Manual has been superseded by the Government instructions or not.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 576A 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."
The position herein is identical. Since Paragraph 576A of the Punjab Jail Manual has the force of law, by executive instructions it cannot be superseded. Since in the facts of the present case, the petitioner by virtue of his habit of life apparently was accustomed to superior mode of living, therefore, the contention of the State cannot be accepted.
Accordingly, it is held that petitioner is entitled to B Class facilities. The petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to extend B Class facilities to the petitioner for remaining tenure of his imprisonment.