ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.P.LAVANDE, J.) :

Heard Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Mirza, learned A.P.P., for respondents.

2. Rule. Mr.Mirza waives notices on behalf of respondents. By consent heard forthwith.

3. By this petition, the petitioner who is undergoing imprisonment for life for having committed offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code at Central Jail, Amravati, challenges the order dated 08.10.2007 passed by the competent authority rejecting the application for parole filed by the petitioner.

4. The competent authority has rejected the application for parole filed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the petitioner was earlier granted parole by the order dated 27.3.2007, pursuant to which the petitioner was released and he surrendered on 10.5.2007. Placing reliance upon the Circular dated 28.11.1989 (wrongly mentioned as 28.11.2007 in the impugned order) the competent authority has held that the petitioner is not entitled to parole since in terms of the said notification a prisoner is not entitled to parole for a period of one year from the date of last surrender, pursuant to the grant of parole.

5. Rule 19 of the Rules has been amended with effect from 7.2.2007. The amended Rule reads as under :

When a prisoner may be released on parole:-

A prisoner will be released on parole for such period as the Competent Authority referred to in rule 18 in its discretion may order, in case of serious illness, or death of any member of the prisoner's family or of his nearest relatives, or pregnant woman prisoner for delivery (except high security risk prisoner), or for any other sufficient cause.

6. Before amendment, proviso to Rule 19 provided that if the prisoner is released on parole he would not be entitled to parole for one year except in case of death of his nearest relative. This proviso no more exists in the amended rule. It is obvious that the proviso was added to Rule 19 of the Rules after the notification dated 28.11.1989 was issued. Rule 19, as it stands today, does not put any embargo on the right of the petitioner to seek parole for a period of one year from the date of last surrender. This being the position, the impugned order rejecting the application for parole is clearly untenable on this ground and the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

7. The Competent Authority is, therefore, directed to decide the application for parole afresh in terms of amended Rule 19 of the Rules within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

8. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. The fees payable to Advocate Sanjay Deshpande, who is appointed to appear for the petitioner, are quantified at Rs.750/-.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document