Back
1992 Supreme(Cal) 96
High Court Of Calcutta
N. P. SINGH, TARUN CHATTERJEE
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
CHANDRA NATH BANIK - Respondent
F. M. A. T. 446 Of 1992
Decided On : 02/28/1992
AMALESH ROY, BHOLA NATH SEN, L.C.BEHANI, MILAN MUKHARJI, Raja Tarafdar, S.C.Ukil, SUCHANDRA MUKHERJI
A court cannot, while exercising its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution, pass an order superseding or conflicting with a statutory provision, especially when it is in the nature of an Act.
Headnote:
PRISONERS ACT, 1900 - SECTION 31A - PAROLE - RELEASE OF CONVICT ON PAROLE - COURT'S POWER UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION - LIMITATION IMPOSED BY STATUTE - COURT CANNOT DIRECT RELEASE FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING ONE MONTH.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a convict sentenced to life imprisonment for the brutal murder of his daughter-in-law, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his application for parole by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta. The trial court allowed the petition and directed the respondent's release on parole for two months, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Inder Singh v. State Delhi Administration, where the court had directed the release of two convicts on parole for two months after every period of one year.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court erred in directing the respondent's release on parole for a period exceeding one month, as S. 31A of the Prisoners Act, 1900, as amended by West Bengal Act XIII of 1955, limits the period of temporary release to one month. The court noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Inder Singh was given in the context of Art. 21 of the Constitution and did not consider any statutory provision like S. 31A.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court could direct the release of the respondent on parole for a period exceeding one month, in view of the limitation imposed by S. 31A of the Prisoners Act, 1900? 2. Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Inder Singh v. State Delhi Administration, which directed the release of convicts on parole for two months after every period of one year, could be relied upon in the present case, considering the statutory limitation under S. 31A.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that S. 31A of the Prisoners Act, 1900, as amended by West Bengal Act XIII of 1955, clearly limits the period of temporary release of a convict to one month. This statutory provision cannot be overridden by the court's power under Art. 226 of the Constitution, as the court should not pass any order superseding or conflicting with a statutory provision, especially when it is in the nature of an Act. 2. The court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Inder Singh v. State Delhi Administration, noting that it was given in the context of Art. 21 of the Constitution and did not consider any statutory provision like S. 31A. Therefore, the decision in Inder Singh could not be relied upon to justify the trial court's order directing the respondent's release on parole for a period exceeding one month.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and modified the trial court's order, directing the respondent's release on parole for a period of one month from the date of his release. The court also directed the respondent to surrender after the expiry of the parole period, in accordance with S. 31b of the Prisoners Act, 1900.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filedon behalf of State of West Bengal and its authorities for setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 20/01/1992 passed by a learned Judge of this court on a writ application filed on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent.
( 2 ) WHEN the application filed on behalf of the appellant-State for staying operation of the judgment and order under appeal was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for both the parties suggested that the appeal itself be treated as on day's list for hearing and be disposed of along with the application for interim relief. Accordingly, the appeal taken up for hearing along with the application for interim relief.
( 3 ) THE writ petitioner-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was an accused for having committed a pre-planned brutal murder of his daughter-in-law one Debjani. After trial he was sentenced to death which was confirmed by this High Court as well as by the Supreme Court on appeal filed on behalf of the respondent against the judgment of this court. We are informed that later an application was filed on behalf of the respondent for substituting the sentence of death by a sentence of imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court, because of lapse of time, passed an order substituting the sentence of death by a sentence for imprisonment for life. The said decision of the Supreme Court is reported in 1987 Cal Cri LR (SC) 152 (Chandra Nath Banik v. State of West Bengal ).
( 4 ) WHILE undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life, the respondent made an application before the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta for releasing him on parole. That prayer was rejected on mentioning several grounds including that the respondent had been convicted in connection with a pre-planned and brutal murder of daughter-in-law which amounted to a heinous act.
( 5 ) THEREAFTER the aforesaid writ application was filed before this court for quashing the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and for a direction that the respondent be released on parole.
( 6 ) THE learned trial Judge by the order which is the subject-matter of the appeal, after quashing the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, gave the following direction :"accordingly, after hearing the rival submissions of the parties, I am of the view that the writ petitioner should be released on parole, at least for a period of two months, following the decision in the case of Inder Singh. Accordingly, I direct the respondents, including the Inspector General of Prisons, West Bengal, to pass necessary order in the said regard forthwith, preferably within a week from communication of this order. "pursuant to the order aforesaid, the respondent was released on parole on 28/01/1992.
( 7 ) THE learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, while questioning the validity of the order aforesaid placed reliance on S. 31a of the Prisoners Act, 1900 as amended by West Bengal Act XIII of 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The relevant part of the said section is as follows :"31a. Temporary release of prisoners.- (1) The State Government or such authority as the State Government may empower in this behalf may subject to the provisions of this part and to such conditions as may be prescribed by rules made under S. 31c, at any time, release temporarily for a period not exceeding one month excluding the time required for journey from and to the prison, any prisoner who, having been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of more than two years, has actually undergone imprisonment for not less than one year : provided that before a prisoner is released under this sub-section he shall have to execute a bond with or without sureties as the State Government or other authority making the order of release may determine, for good behaviour during the period of release and for observing the conditions of the release : provided further that a prisoner who has
