Crl. Misc. No. M-20406 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-20406 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 30.03.2011 Nanhi Devi ..........Petitioner Versus State of U.T., Chandigarh and others ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navjot Sidhu, Advocate for Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondents No.4 and 5. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Nanhi for issuing directions to respondent No.2 to transfer the son of the petitioner, namely, Sunil Kumar from District Jail Nabha to District Jail, Bhiwani. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that son of the petitioner was convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act by Additional Sessions Judge, U.T., Chandigarh vide its judgment dated 4.8.2008 and against the said judgment appeal is also pending. Earlier also, the son of petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Crl. Misc. No. M-27352 of 2009 for transfer from Burail Jail, Chandigarh to Bhiwani Jail, Haryana and Crl. Misc. No. M-20406 of 2010 (2) the said petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation filed by the son of the petitioner as per law but inspite of that direction, no action was taken. Learned counsel further contends that subsequently the son of the petitioner was transferred to District Jail Nabha and again an application was moved for transfer from District Jail Nabha to District Jail, Bhiwani but no action was taken. Learned counsel also submits that the husband of the petitioner had already expired and she is old widow lady of 60 years and there is no other member in the family to visit the convict and moreover it is very difficult for the petitioner to meet her son at such far away place. Learned counsel also submits that no other case is pending against the petitioner. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Manohar Lal Vs. State of Haryana 2000 (4) RCR (Criminal) 839. Mr. S.S. Mor, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 submits that not only the son of the petitioner was transferred but other prisoners were also transferred to District Jail, Nabha and moreover keeping in view the number of prisoners, it is very difficult to accommodate the son of the petitioner in District Jail, Bhiwani. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the application and other documents available on record. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner is old widow lady of more than 60 years and there is no other family member to visit the convict and it is very difficult for her to go at such a distant place, the prayer of petitioner seems to be genuine. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and respondent No.1 is directed to transfer the son of the petitioner, namely, Sunil Kumar from District Jail, Nabha to District Jail, Bhiwani. Let the copy of the order be sent to respondent No.4 for Crl. Misc. No. M-20406 of 2010 (3) compliance and necessary orders be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. March 30, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No