Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SULTAN versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sultan v. The State of Haryana & Anr. - CRM-66921-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 12954 (21 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No. 66921-M of 2006.

Date of Decision: January 11, 2007.

Sultan

....Petitioner

through

Mr. K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate

Versus

The State of Haryana & Anr.

...Respondents

through

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

CORAM:
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)

The petitioner, who is a life convict, is aggrieved at the order dated 20.3.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Director General (Prisons), Haryana whereby despite recommendations of the District Magistrate, Hisar, the petitioner has been declined temporary release on parole for agricultural purposes on the ground that as required by Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, the petitioner is not in cultivating possession of the land.

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....".

Criminal Misc. No.66921-M of 2006. ::-2-:: It appears that the Director General of Prisons, Haryana has misread the report of the District Magistrate, Hisar, dated 13.7.2006 in which it is categorically mentioned that the petitioner owns agricultural land measuring 45 kanals 3 marlas. The District Magistrate, Hisar has also recommended the petitioner's release on parole to carry out agricultural activities. Since as per the report of the District Magistrate, Hisar, the petitioner was in cultivating possession of his 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 20.3.2006 is quashed and the Director General (Prisons), Haryana is directed to reconsider the petitioner's case and decide the same afresh in the light of observations made herein above. Necessary order shall be passed within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received by him.

Disposed of.

January 11, 2007. ( SURYA KANT )

dinesh JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.