Shamsher Singh vs State of Haryana

K.K. Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AAG for the State of Haryana.

The petitioner, Shamsher Singh is lodged in District Jail, Rohtak who is undergoing imprisonment for life. He has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that suitable directions be issued to the respondents, who are State of Haryana through the Director General of Prisons, Haryana and the Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak, to grant `B'' Class facility to him, who is an income tax payee in view of the provisions contained in para 576A(2) of the Punjab Jail Manual. Notice was issued to respondents 1 and 2 and they have filed their written statements contending, inter alia, that the petitioner was convicted on 23.12.1995 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment in case arising out of the FIR No. 286/92 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 302, 307 IPC, Police Station Sadar Palwal. Regarding instructions contained in para 576A Punjab Jail Manual, it was mentioned in para 3 and para 6 of the reply as under :

"That para 3 is wrong and hence denied. It is further submitted in this regard that para 576(A) has been substituted by the Govt. instructions issued vide letter No. 32/2/83JJ(7) dated 25th May, 1983 and 21.1.85 attached as Annexure R1 and R2. Accordingly the `B'' class can be provided to convicts only on the social/political status and not on the basis of their income or land revenue being paid by them. It is further submitted that the petitioner does not possess any of the qualifications enumerated in para 2 of the said Govt. instructions attached as Annexure R1.

That, para 6 is wrong and hence denied. It is further submitted in this regard that previously the instructions made under para 576A of Punjab Jail Manual were issued vide Punjab Government letter No. 8917H Jails dated 16.3.31 which have been superseded vide Haryana Government letter No. 32/2/83JJ(7) dated 25.5.83 and 21.1.85 as is evident from Annexure R1 and R2."

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of a single Bench of this Court reported in Surinder Kumar Sehgal v. State of Haryana, 1996(2) RCR 228 wherein it was held that the provisions of para 576A of the Punjab Jail Manual could not be superseded or taken away by administrative instructions. The earlier decisions reported in Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993(2) RCR 514 and Sadhu Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1984(2) RCR 83 were relied on. Para 576A of the Punjab Jail Manual provides as under :

"576A. (1) Convicted persons shall be divided into three classes, namely A, B and C. Class `A'' will contain all prisoners who are :

(a) Nonhabitual prisoners of good character.

(b) by social status, education and habit of life been accustomed to a superior made of living, and

(c) have not been convicted of

(i) offences involving elements of cruelty, moral degradation or personal greed;

(ii) serious or premediated violence;

(iii) serious offence 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 prisioners may be included in this class by order of the inspectorGeneral of Prisons."

The executive instructions which have been issued regarding this are contained in Annexure R1, dated 25.5.1983 and R2 dated 21.1.1985. The instructions issued on 25.5.1983 were duly considered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Surinder Kumar Sehgal (supra). The ratio of the decision rendered in the case of Surinder Kumar Sehgal (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case which also involved the same instructions and the law settled in the case of Surinder Kumar Sehgal (supra) will also remain and be applicable to the subsequent instructions dated 21.1.1985. The learned Single Judge has after referring to para 576A of the Punjab Jail Manual and the instructions as aforesaid issued on 25.5.1983 observed as under :

"It is apparent from perusal of para 576A that it is rules framed by the Local Government under Section 60 of the Prisons Act. The said rules have statutory force. Once the same has statutory force, it cannot be superseded by issuing administrative instructions. This question that the said rules have statutory force was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sadhu Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1984(2) Recent CR 83 . Relying on the same, this Court in the case of Naib Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1993(2) Recent CR 514 held as under :

`After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I hold that para 576A of the Punjab Jail Manual is amongst those paragraphs of the 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''.

As one finds in complete agreement with the view expressed and since para 576A of the Punjab Jail Manual has statutory force, the same remains applicable unless superseded in accordance with law and not by administrative instructions. There is no dispute that has been raised that petitioners were income tax payee. There is no controversy raised that they were accustomed to superior mode of living. Therefore, it must be held that they are entitled to the benefit of para 576A of Punjab Jail Manual."

The facts of this case are squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Surinder Kumar Sehgal (supra) and, therefore, this petition has considerable merit and is allowed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to `B'' Class facility. The respondents are directed to extend the `B'' Class facility to the petitioner for the remaining term of his imprisonment for life.