AVTAR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 1082 · Decided: 19-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AVTAR SINGH 
V. 
ST A TE OF HAR Y ANA AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 19, 2002 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, S.N. PHUKAN AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.l 
Constitution of lndia--Artic/e 21. 
Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988-Ss. 
C 3(3) and 4-Release of a Prisoner on parole-·fnc/usion of in the total period 
of detention-Release of a prisoner on parole and furlough- Distinction 
between-Held, period of release of a prisoner on parole though ordinarily 
entitled to be counted towards the total period of detention, same could be 
curtailed by legislative Act, Rules, instructions or terms- -S-3(3) of the Act 
D providing that a prisoner released on parole not entitled to count the said 
period toward5 the total period of detention is valid and thus not violative of 
Artie/, 21--classification of prisoners released on parole under S-3 and on 
furlough under S-4 held not discriminatory. 
The issue involved in the present appeal and writ petition is whether 
F the period of parole availed by a convict could be included in the total period 
of imprisonment undergone by him. High court dismissed the application of 
appellant-Convict holding that the period of parole could not be counted 
towards the actual sentence undergone by him. Aggrieved, appellant has filed 
the present appeal and writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of 
S-3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 
F 1988. 
Dismissing the appeal and the writ petition, the Court 
HELD : I.I. Under sections 3 and 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct 
Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 the legislature has made two 
G categories of prisoners for temporary release, a prisoner released on parole 
under section 3 is not entitled for counting the period of release towards the 
total period of sentence of imprisonment undergone by him whereas, a 
prisoner released on furlough, period of such temporary release shall be 
counted towards his total period of imprisonment. The Constitution Bench 
in Sunil Fulchand Shah's case held that the period of temporary release of a 
H 
1082 
> 
A VT AR SINGH v. STATE OF BARY ANA 
1083 
prisoner on parole is to be counted towards the total period of detention, unless A 
it is otherwise provided by legislative act, rules, instructions or terms of the 
gnmt of parole. It cannot be held that sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act 
is hit by Article 21 of the Constitution. By a valid legislative act the period of 
temporary release on parole had been denied while counting the actual 
sentence undergone by the prisoner. lt cannot be said that such right of a B 
prisoner has been taken away without due process of law. 
[1086-G; 1087-G; 1089-H) 
Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and Ors., [2000) 3 SCC 409, relied 
on. 
l.2. The legislature for the purpose of temporary release has created C 
two classes of prisoners. The conditions of temporary release on furlough 
under Section 4 is more rigorous and a prisoner shall not be entitled to such 
temporary release unless he fulfills the conditions laid down in the said section. 
But in Section 3 no such rigorous condition has been imposed and only the 
circumstances under which the temporary release can be granted have been D 
stated. Moreover certain classes of prisoners cannot get the benefit of furlough. 
On close look at both the sections it would appear that these sections operate 
on different fields. Section 3 has been enacted to meet certain situation of the 
prisoner but Section 4 has been enacted as a reformative measures as a 
prisoner has to show good conduct while in i11carceration Thus classification 
is based 011 rational criteria and cannot be said to be discriminatory in nature. E 
(1089-D-Ei 
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Oro. etc., and Charles Gurmukh 
Sobraj v. Delhi Administration and Ors., (1978) AIR SC 1675 ~ (1979( SCR I 
392 and Stare of Haryana and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh and Ors .. [200013 SCC 
394, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
271 of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2000 of the Punjab and 
F 
Haryana High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 17823-M of 2000. 
G 
WITH 
W.P. (Crl.) No. 119 of 200 I. 
K.P. Singh, Alok, for J.P. Dhanda, (NP), Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Prem 
Malhotra and Mahabir Singh for the appearing parties. 
H 
1084 
SUPREME C'OliRT REPORTS 
[2002] I S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PHUKAN, J. Leave is granted. 
This appeal by special leave and the writ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.