LAXMIBEN BHUPATBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Concern for the liberty of citizens has been voice at prestigious seminars and in course of erudite articles and yet it has seldom been realised that in the absence of a vigilent supervision exercised by the Judiciary in regard to the matters pertaining to prisoner under going sentences of imprisonment in the various prisons focus will remain on the liberty of only those who are facing preventive detention for anti-social activities. This distressing aspect has come to the surface by reason of the fact that this High Court has been enter- taining applications made by prisoners from jail as Special Criminal Applications with liberty - dimensions and scrutinising the matters closely and in depth.

(2.) In view of the atmosphere created on account of this supervision a vigilent wife of a prisoner who was under going jail sentence addressed a letter to the Chief Justice complaining that her husband was being kept in prison though the term of his sentence had expired and he had become entitled to be released upon completion of his jail sentence. The letter was treated as a Special Criminal Application and it now transpires that the complaint was more than justified. The prisoner who was entitled to be released about one year back had to remain in prison for about an year longer on account of failure on the part of the competent authority to pass appropriate orders as per relevant rules and on account of failure of the jail machinery. It appears that as soon as the jail authorities learnt about the institution of the Special Criminal Application the prisoner has been released. It is therefore not necessary to pass any orders directing the State Govern- ment to release him.

(3.) . However we do not think that we can rest content merely be- cause the prisoner has now been released. We must emphasize that what has happened in this case does not happen in future. In fact we had an occasion to deal with a similar question on 23/02/1982 In that case also there was a failure of the machinery and the prisoner was not released though he had completed seventeen years inclusive of the remission earned by him in due course. The State Government placed reliance on a Resolution dated 28/02/1975 which deserves to be quoted. We quote: