SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Bom) 145

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH)
H.W. Dhabe R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Pralhad Dnyanoba Gajbhiye.... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another.... Respondents.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 264 of 1993, decided on 31-3-1994.
Advocates appeared :
R.P. Joshi, for the petitioner.
H. Ahmed, A.G.P., for the State.

The words "actual imprisonment undergone" in Rule 3 of the Furlough Rules mean and include the period of detention undergone by the accused as an under-trial prisoner.

Headnote:

PRISON - FURLOUGH - SCOPE AND AMBIT - RULE 3 OF THE PRISONS (BOMBAY FURLOUGH AND PAROLE) RULES, 1959 - INTERPRETATION - "ACTUAL IMPRISONMENT UNDERGONE" INCLUDES DETENTION UNDERGONE AS AN UNDER-TRIAL PRISONER.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, arrested on 18-6-1991 for an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on 6-2-1993. He filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence, which was pending before the High Court. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to grant of furlough on expiry of two years from 18-6-1991, the date of his arrest, and that he had not filed any application for furlough with the respondents under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (Furlough Rules).

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the words "actual imprisonment undergone" in Rule 3 of the Furlough Rules mean and include the period of detention undergone by the accused as an under-trial prisoner. The Court observed that the purpose of grant of furlough is to enable the prisoner to have family association and to avoid ill-effects of continuous prison life, and that the period of furlough is treated as remission of sentence. The Court further observed that the legislative intent by enacting section 428 of the Cr. P.C. providing the period of detention undergone by the accused to be set-off against the sentence of imprisonment, is in consonance with the right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: Whether the words "actual imprisonment undergone" in Rule 3 of the Furlough Rules include the period of detention undergone by the accused as an under-trial prisoner.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the words "actual imprisonment undergone" in Rule 3 of the Furlough Rules mean and include the period of detention undergone by the accused as an under-trial prisoner. The Court observed that the purpose of grant of furlough is to enable the prisoner to have family association and to avoid ill-effects of continuous prison life, and that the period of furlough is treated as remission of sentence. The Court further observed that the legislative intent by enacting section 428 of the Cr. P.C. providing the period of detention undergone by the accused to be set-off against the sentence of imprisonment, is in consonance with the right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to compute the period of the petitioner's detention/imprisonment as an under-trial prisoner while computing the actual imprisonment undergone under Rule 3 and on that basis release him on furlough in accordance with the Furlough Rules on fulfilment of all the conditions mentioned therein.

JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---The principal question raised in the present criminal writ petition is relating to scope and ambit of Rule 3 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The question is, whether the actual imprisonment undergone provided in the said provision includes the imprisonment undergone as an under-trial prisoner or only imprisonment after conviction.

2. Before we examine the legal question, there is no dispute about the facts that the petitioner was arrested on 18-6-1991 for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. There is also no dispute that the Sessions Judge, Nagpur convicted the petitioner under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded life imprisonment vide his judgment dated 6-2-1993. It is also admitted by the parties that the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the said judgment of the learned Sessions Judge whereby the petitioner has been convicted of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded life imprisonment and that Criminal Appeal is pending before this Court.

3. In the light of the facts stated above, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to grant of furlough on expiry of two years from 18-6-1991, the date when he was arrested for the first time and after he was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 6-2-1993. The contention of the petitioner is that since criminal appeal filed by him against the judgment dated 6-2-1993 passed by the Sessions Court, Nagpur is pending before this Court, he has not filed any application for furlough with the respondents under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Furlough Rules).

4. The Furlough Rules of 1959 have been framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clauses (5) and (29) of section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894. Rule 2 of the Furlough Rules empowers the Inspector-General of Prisons or the Deputy Inspector-General of Prisons (Sanctioning Authority) to grant furlough to convicted prisoners.

Rule 3 of the Furlough Rules which requires consideration by us, is as follows :

"3. (1) A prisoner, who is sentenced to imprisonment for a period exceeding one year but not exceeding five years, may be released on furlough for a period of two weeks at a time for every year of actual imprisonment undergone.

(2) A prisoner, who is sentenced to imprisonment for a period exceeding five years may be released on furlough for a period of two weeks at a time of every two years of actual imprisonment undergone.

Provided that a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for more than five years but not to imprisonment for life may be released on furlough every year instead of every two years during the last five years of his unexpired period of sentence.

Provided further that a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment may be released on furlough every year instead of every two years after he completes seven years actual imprisonment".

Rule 4 of the Furlough Rules makes a provision that furlough may not be granted to the prisoners who fall in the categories mentioned therein.

Rule 5 of the Furlough Rules provides that furlough shall not be granted to prisoner within a period of six months from the date of his return from parole.

In accordance with Rule 6 of the Furlough Rules, furlough is not to be granted to a prisoner unless he has a relative willing to receive him while on furlough and ready to enter into a prescribed surety bond.

Rule 7 of the Furlough Rules provides that every prisoner desirous of being released on furlough shall be required to give a personal bond of the required amount.

Rule 8 of the Furlough Rules provides how the application for grant of furlough should be dealt with.

Rule 9 of the Furlough Rules deals with fresh application for furlough inasmuch as the prisoner may, if he so desires, makes an application for furlough six months after the rejection of his previous applicatio















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top