Rajesh Puri vs State of Punjab

S. S. Grewal, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relates to grant of parole to the petitioner under Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a period of four weeks in order to enable him to carry out repairs of his house.

According to the petitioner after his arrest on 11.10.1981, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide order of Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dated 3.12.1982 and that he has not been released on parole so far in spite of the fact he is in custody for the last more than 11 years. It was further pleaded that the house of the petitioner had collapsed in recent rains and needed immediate repairs, that there is no other ablebodied male member in his family to carry out such repairs. This aspect of the case also finds support from Panchayatnama Annexure P3.

The respondents in their reply pleaded that on verification through the District authorities, it has been verified that the petitioner had left his village for the last several years and he has settled in Bikaner district where he got married. On account of his illicit relations with another woman he committed the murder of his wife for which he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. It was also pleaded that his house is located in his native village Shilowal where his younger brother is living and running a Maniari shop who can carry out the repairs of the house and because of this circumstance the competent authority turned down his request for grant of parole.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was convicted by Sessions Judge, Bikaner (Rajasthan) as far back as 3rd of December, 1982 and that he was subsequently transferred to Central Jail, Amritsar and as such only the State of Rajasthan was competent to grant parole to the petitioner and the authorities in Punjab under the Act were not competent to grant parole to the petitioner without prior concurrence of the competent authority in Rajasthan where the offence was allegedly committed.

The argument is wholly devoid of any merit. Under subsection (1) of Section 3 of Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950, when any person is confined in any prison of a State, the Government of that State may, with the willingness of the Government of the other State concerned, direct the removal or transfer of the prisoner, from their prison to any prison in that other State. That provision applies to all classes of prisoners. In terms of this provision, no interState agreement could possibly be arrived at, which would make the subsequent release of such prisoner on probation or otherwise, by the transferee State, conditional upon the prior concurrence of the State from whose prison he had been transferred.

Apart from this, it is clear upon the transfer of a prisoner from the prisons of one State to that of another, subsection (2) of Section 3 of Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950 comes into play. On a plain construction of Section 3(2) of officer incharge of the prison to which a prisoner is removed or transferred under subsection (1), has to receive and detain him in that prison, so far as may be, (i) according to the exigencies of any writ, warrant or order of the Court, by which such person had been committed, or (ii) until such person was discharged or removed, in due course of law.

I find support in my view from the Division Bench authority of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sitaram Barelal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 Madhya Pradesh 252, wherein dealing with similar provisions, it was observed that the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 must be regarded as a relevant law governing the subject. It, accordingly, follows that on other conditions being fulfilled, a prisoner transferred to State of M.P. is entitled to benefits of Section 2 thereof, unless he belonged to any of the excepted classes mentioned in Rule 3 of the Rules.

The facts of the case in had clearly indicate, that the petitioner has a widowed mother who is blind, his brother is married and lives with his children and wife separately from his widowed mother. The competent authority thus gravely erred in refusing parole to the petitioner who has undergone more than 11 years of actual sentence.

For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of four weeks under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act, in order to carry out repairs of his house which had fallen due to rains, subject to his furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Amritsar. The petitioner shall surrender before the jail authority concerned, after expiry of the parole period. This petition is accordingly allowed.