IMPORTANT POINT
Furlough periods do not count as actual imprisonment for the purposes of Sec. 433-A of the CrPC, which mandates that a convict must serve a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment before being eligible for remission.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

M.S.SONAK, J. - Heard Mr T. George John for the Petitioner and Mr S.G. Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Mr Deepak Gaonkar appears for the intervenor.

2. Criminal Misc. Application seeking intervention is not opposed by Mr T. George, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Accordingly, the same is allowed. Necessary amendment to be carried out to the cause title forthwith.

3. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. The Petitioner is a convict sentenced to life imprisonment for offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, there is no dispute that the provisions of Sec. 433-A of CrPC apply to the Petitioner's case.

5. The Petitioner had earlier instituted Writ Petition No.477/2021(F) for his premature release. In the said petition, the Petitioner had contended that the parole period must be construed as a period of actual imprisonment undergone by the Petitioner in the context of the provisions of Sec. 433-A of CrPC. However, the above contention was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dtd. 3/8/2022.

6. Against the said decision, Special Leave Petition (CRL) Nos.12574-12577 of 2022 (@ Diary No.29535 of 2022) was preferred. However, by a detailed speaking order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, expressing complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court.

7. The Petitioner, perhaps taking advantage of certain observations in the judgment and order dtd. 3/8/2022, to the effect that the Division Bench was not examining the issue as to whether the furlough period is to be excluded in determining actual imprisonment, has instituted the present petition urging that the furlough period should be construed as "actual imprisonment" in the context of the provisions of Sec. 433-A of CrPC.

8. The Petitioner has made the following prayers in this petition:

I. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or directions as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court directing respondents to add furlough leave as actual imprisonment.

II. To direct the concerned respondents to satisfy this Court as to why they do not count furlough as either remission or in-period despite the prevailing law.

III. Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case in the larger interest of justice.

9. Mr T. George John, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, firstly referred to Rule 1188 of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2021, to submit that the period spent by the prisoner outside the prison on furlough must be counted towards his sentence. Secondly, he relied on the State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394. and Atbir V/s. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 527. to submit that the furlough period is regarded as part of the sentence. Thirdly, he relied on the State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216. submits that an interpretation favouring the prisoner must be preferred in matters of liberty. Based on all this, Mr T. George submitted that the prayers in this petition may be granted.

10. Mr Bhobe, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the issue raised in this petition stands answered against the Petitioner in Rohan Dhungat Etc. V/s. The State of Goa & Ors. Etc. (Special Leave Petition (CRL) Nos.12574-12577 of 2022 (@ Diary No.29535 of 2022)). He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon Rule 335 of the 2006 Rules has held that furlough and parole period shall be counted as remission of sentence. He relied on the State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Raj Kumar alias Bittu, (2021) 9 SCC 292. to submit that a prisoner has to undergo a minimum period of imprisonment of 14 years without remission where the provisions of Sec. 433-A of CrPC are attracted. He also relied on Maru Ram V/s. Union Of India, 1981 (1) SCC 107. to submit that