ORDER :

1. The petitioner is a prisoner undergoing sentence for offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 149 of IPC and Sections 25(1)(1B)(B) and 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 at Central Jail, Bilaspur. On 10/09/2020, he filed an application for grant of leave (on parole) but that application was kept pending and was not being decided by learned District Magistrate, Bilaspur. Ultimately, on the petition filed by the petitioner being WPCR No. 457/2020, this Court vide order dated 05/10/2020, directed the District Magistrate to consider and dispose of the said application filed by the petitioner within a specified time. Pursuant to that order, learned District Magistrate, Bilaspur took a call on petitioner's application for grant of leave (on parole) and rejected it holding that petitioner has been found involved in commission of a jail offence and therefore, he is not eligible for grant of leave (on parole) by virtue of Rule 4(A)(2) of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 against which the instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

2. Mrs. M. Asha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has unnecessarily been denied the privilege of leave (on parole) on the ground of alleged commission of jail offence whereas he was not given an opportunity of hearing, as such, his application for grant of leave (on parole) deserves to be granted.

3. Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned Deputy Advocate General, would submit that on 23/08/2020, petitioner was found carrying prohibited articles inside the jail premises and he was convicted for offence punishable under Section 45 of the Prison Act, 1894 and a punishment of deduction of 7 earned leaves was imposed upon him under Section 46 of the Prisons Act, 1894, as such, his application for grant of leave (on parole) has rightly been rejected by learned District Magistrate.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the records.

5. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the provision contained under Section 31A(4)(b) of the Prisoners Act, 1900, which provides as under :

“(b) he has not been punished for a prison offence under section 46 of the Prison Act, 1984 (IX of 1894) during twelve months preceding the date of commencement of the leave applied for.”

6. Similarly, Rule 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989 provides for conditions of leave which states as under :

“4. Conditions of Leave. The prisoners shall be granted leave under subsection (1) of Section 31A of the Act on the following conditions, namely :

(a) He fulfills the conditions laid down in Section 31A of the Act;

(b) He has not committed any offence in jail between the date of application for leave and receipt of the order of such leave;

(c) XXXX XXXX XXXX”

7. Section 45 of the Prison Act, 1894 defines prison offences whereas Section 46 of the Prison Act, 1894 prescribes for the punishment of such prison offences, which states as under :

“CHAPTER XI

PRISON OFFENCES

45. The following acts are declared to be prison offences when committed by a prisoner :

(1) to (11) XXX XXX XXX

(12) receiving, possessing or transferring any prohibited articles;

46. Punishment of such offences – The Superintendent may examine any person touching any such offence, and determine thereupon, and punish such offence by :

(1) A formal warning;

(2) XXX

(3) XXX

(4) Such loss of privileges admissible under the remission system for the time being in force as may be prescribed by rules made by the State Government;

(5) XXX

(6) XXX”

8. As such, a conjoint reading of Section 31A(4)(b) of the Prisoners Act, 1900 and Rule 4(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Leave Rules, 1989 would show that the person applying for leave must not have been punished with the punishments prescribed under Section 46 of the Prison Act, 1894 and he also must not have committed any offence in the jail between the date of application of leave and receipt o