High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Raj Kumar v. The State of Haryana & Ors. - CRM-60907-M-2006  RD-P&H 12877 (19 December 2006)
Crl. Misc. No. 60907-M of 2006.
Date of Decision: January 10, 2007.
Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Advocate
The State of Haryana & Ors.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL)
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, learned Sr.
DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
The petitioner, who is a life convict, is aggrieved at the order dated 25.8.2006 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Director General (Prisons), Haryana whereby despite recommendations of the District Magistrate, Sonepat, the petitioner has been declined temporary release on parole for agricultural purposes on the ground that as per Rule 3.1 (actually it should be Section) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, it is mandatory that the land should be in the name of the convict.
The impugned order is a glaring example as to how the orders under the said Act are being passed in a totally mechanical manner.
Section 3(1)(c) of the Act empowers the State Government to release a prisoner temporarily if the State Government is satisfied that "the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operations on his land or his father's undivided land actually in possession of the prisoner....".
Admittedly, the petitioner's father owns agricultural land in the village. The District Magistrate, Sonepat has also recommended the petitioner's release on parole to carry out agricultural activities. It is obvious that the petitioner having been sentenced and being in jail, can not be in actual physical possession of his father's undivided agricultural land. The only logical and meaningful interpretation to the aforementioned provision would be that if immediately before his imprisonment, the petitioner was in cultivating possession of his father's undivided land, his request for temporary release on parole for agricultural purpose would undoubtedly fall within the ambit of Section 3(1)(c) of the Act.
For the reasons aforementioned, this petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 25.8.2006 is quashed and the Director General (Prisons), Haryana is directed to reconsider the petitioner's case and to grant him parole for agricultural purposes if it is found that the petitioner was in cultivating possession of his father's undivided land prior to his conviction and sentence. Necessary order shall be passed within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received by him.
January 10, 2007. ( SURYA KANT )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.