Khuman Singh Vs. Jail Superintendent, Central Jail and ors.

Khuman Singh vs Jail Superintendent, Central Jail and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Dec 05, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/510185

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/510185
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: A.M. Sapre, J.
Decided On: Dec 05, 2003
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1077/2003
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055. Article 141; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Ful...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954 - Sections 2; Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1964 - Rules 4 and 6; Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Khuman Singh

Advocate Sonali Gupta, Adv.

Respondent

Jail Superintendent, Central Jail and ors.

Advocate P. Verma, Govt. Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and ;P.R. Bhatnagar, Adv. for Respondent No. 3

Legal References

Acts: Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954 - Sections 2; Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1964 - Rules 4 and 6; Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: 2004(2)MPHT36

Excerpt

.....of the order passed by the learned single judge. the pleadings also assume immense significance. it would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of articles 226 and 227 of the constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. in this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that article 226 of the constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. it will depend upon factual matrix of each case. dr. jaidev siddha v. jaiprakash siddha, 2007(2) mpjr (fb) 361: air 2007 mp 269 (fb) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of slp preferred against order reported in rama and company v. state of madhya pradesh [2007 (2) mpjr 229 (db) (mp)]. - prisoners' release on probation rules, 1964. 2. although, concerned district magistrate, superintendent of police and jail superintendent have recommended the case of petitioner for his release on probation in terms of rules applicable, the board by impugned order dated 2342-2002 (annexure p-1) rejected the prayer of petitioner essentially or rather only on the ground that the nature in which the offence was committed by the petitioner does not entitle him to seek his release on probation. it is much more so when all other conditions contemplated in section 2 read with rules are fully satisfied by the petitioner......in which, he participated in crime which resulted in his conviction. as also taken note for all other authorities, i.e., d.m. ratlam and welfare office, ujjain and superintendent jail have made recommendations in favour of petitioner for release him on probation. in my opinion though to some extent, the involvement of petitioner in crime may be relevant while looking his antecedent as contemplated in section 2 of m.p. prisoner's release on probation act, 1954 but that by itself should not be made as the sole ground to refuse the prayer. it is much more so when all other conditions contemplated in section 2 read with rules are fully satisfied by the petitioner. that apart, even while considering the antecedents of petitioner no other incident was taken into account except the incident of crime in which he was convicted.6. taking into consideration aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be released on probation. as a result, petition succeeds and is allowed. impugned order dated 23-12-2002 (annexure p-l) is set aside. the petitioner be released on probation by the respondents after ensuring full compliance of rules for a period prescribed for release of any prisoner on probation. let formalities to that effect be done within one month. state counsel to send copy of order to respondents for ensuring compliance.c.c. within three days.

Full Judgment

ORDER

A.M. Sapre, J.

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for his release on probation under the provisions of M.P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954 read with M.P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1964.

2. Although, concerned District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and Jail Superintendent have recommended the case of petitioner for his release on probation in terms of Rules applicable, the Board by impugned order dated 2342-2002 (Annexure P-1) rejected the prayer of petitioner essentially or rather only on the ground that the nature in which the offence was committed by the petitioner does not entitle him to seek his release on probation. It is against this rejection, the petitioner is in writ.

3. Heard Smt. Sonali Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri P. Verma, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri P.R. Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3.

4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having gonethrough with the record of the case, I find substance in the writ and hence, itdeserves to be allowed resulting in quashing of order dated 23-12-2002 (Annexure P-1).

5. As noted supra, the only ground on which the petitioner's prayer was rejected by the Board is his role in which, he participated in crime which resulted in his conviction. As also taken note for all other authorities, i.e., D.M. Ratlam and Welfare Office, Ujjain and Superintendent Jail have made recommendations in favour of petitioner for release him on probation. In my opinion though to some extent, the involvement of petitioner in crime may be relevant while looking his antecedent as contemplated in Section 2 of M.P. Prisoner's Release on Probation Act, 1954 but that by itself should not be made as the sole ground to refuse the prayer. It is much more so when all other conditions contemplated in Section 2 read with Rules are fully satisfied by the petitioner. That apart, even while considering the antecedents of petitioner no other incident was taken into account except the incident of crime in which he was convicted.

6. Taking into consideration aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be released on probation. As a result, petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 23-12-2002 (Annexure P-l) is set aside. The petitioner be released on probation by the respondents after ensuring full compliance of rules for a period prescribed for release of any prisoner on probation. Let formalities to that effect be done within one month. State Counsel to send copy of order to respondents for ensuring compliance.

C.C. within three days.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2003 Same Parties Khuman Singh vs Jail Superintendent, Central Jail and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge A.M. Sapre, J. Acts & Sections Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954 - Se...

Civil