Crl. Writ Petition No.613 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No.613 of 2011 Date of Decision : 27th July, 2011 Karambir .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. H. P. S. Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Karambir life convict has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, claiming benefit of remissions being denied to him by the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Clause (e) of the State Government Policy dated 12.04.2002 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner being physically handicapped is entitled to premature release on undergoing actual sentence of six years. This contention cannot be accepted. According to aforesaid Clause (e) of the policy, life convict is entitled to this benefit only if the handicap is of such a nature as to render him totally incapable of committing any offence and further render him incapable of looking after himself in the jail. However these conditions are not satisfied by the petitioner. As per medical report furnished today in Court by State Counsel, the petitioner is suffering Crl. Writ Petition No.613 of 2011 -2- from epilepsy and was getting treatment from Psychiatry Department of PGIMS, Rohtak. However, on its basis, it cannot be said that petitioner's handicap is of such nature as to render him totally incapable of committing any offence nor it can be said that he is incapable of looking after himself in jail. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to benefit of Clause (e) of policy Annexure P-1 and the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, negatived. Learned counsel for the petitioned next contended that the petitioner is not being granted benefit of remissions in accordance with Para 635-A of Punjab Jail Manual as applicable to Haryana. The said remission is being denied to the petitioner because the nature of his imprisonment is rigorous but he is not doing labour work in the jail. However, according to Para 635-A of the Jail Manual, if a prisoner is unable to labour for reasons beyond his control i.e. being in Court or in transit or in hospital or on invalid gang, he shall be entitled to benefit in accordance with the scale mentioned in this para. However, absence from work should not be due to prisoner's own misconduct in jail. Further, if the petitioner is in hospital or on invalid gang, the remission shall not be granted unless the medical officer certifies that petitioner's absence from labour is due to cause beyond his control and is not caused by any action of the prisoner himself. In the instant case, respondents have themselves stated in paragraph 3 of their reply that the petitioner was taking treatment from Psychiatry Department of PGIMS, Rohtak w.e.f. 02.04.2004 and was declared unfit for any type of work by the Board of Doctors of PGIMS, Rohtak and, therefore, the petitioner has mostly remained sick during his conviction period. It is also pleaded Crl. Writ Petition No.613 of 2011 -3- that being rigorous imprisonment, the petitioner could not be put on any type of labour work on the advice of Medical Officer of the Jail. It is thus respondents' own version that the petitioner has been certified by the Medical Officers to be unfit for any type of work and, therefore, petitioner's absence from labour is due to cause beyond his control being on invalid gang i.e. unfit to do labour work. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to benefit of remission within the parameters specified in para 635-A of the Punjab Jail Manual as applicable to Haryana. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant writ petition is allowed partly and respondents are directed to grant benefit of remissions in accordance with the provisions of Para 635-A of the Punjab Jail Manual as applicable to Haryana. Needful be done within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 27th July, 2011 'raj'