V. V. BEDARKAR, J.

( 1 ) THE prisoner has come with a grievance for not granting him furlough leave for a considerable period. He was convicted for imprisonment for life by an order dated 22-10-1974.

( 2 ) IT is the grievance of the petitioner that according to the rules he is entitled to furlough leave but he was granted furlough leave only twice and though he is entitled to third more furlough leave the same is refused on the ground that he was punished for jail offences in 1975. It is therefore his grievance that that punishment should not come in his way of getting furlough leave.

( 3 ) AGAINST this petition Shri R. S. Rashtrapal Jailor Ahmedabad Central Prison Ahmedabad has filed an affidavit. In this affidavit it stated that as per Rule 3 (2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules) a life convict is entitled to Furlough leave after two years for the first seven years. Therefore according to this affidavit the petitioner was entitled to furlough leave on 22-10-1976 (as he was sentenced on 22 It is the case that the petitioner was given jail punishments on 19-8-1975 and 6 Therefore as per Rule 4 (6) of the Rules and also as per the Note 3 under Rule 3 etc. the petitioner lost his furlough rights which was due on 29-10-1976 as stated above. But there-after there is no explanation as to what happened to the petitioners 1978 furlough leave.

( 4 ) WHEN we asked specific question as to what were the jail offences committed by the petitioner it was stated that on 19-8-1975 he took Khichadi in stead of leaves. The petitioner has submitted in his application that as he was not well he took Khichadi instead of leaves and secondly on 6 it is the allegation the petitioner purchased lemons from the Jain Canteen itself. It is told that for these offences on each count remission of 5 days was cut. So he has been already punished.

( 5 ) SUB-RULE (6) of Rule 4 of the Rules provides that prisoners whose conduct is in the opinion of the Superintendent of Prison not satisfactory enough shall not be considered for release on furlough. This does not provide for automatic cut in furlough as a punishment. It is very clear that the petitioner was not told that he is not entitled to furlough leave on the ground that the Superintendent of Prison did not consider his conduct satisfactory. He was never informed about this.

( 6 ) IN fact the Superintendent of Prison had not formed the requisite opinion under Rule 4 (6) that the conduct of the prisoner was so unsatisfactory (not satisfactory enough) for release on furlough. It is not even alleged that such opinion was formed by the Superintendent. The prisrone Was never told about this. He could not have formed such opinion in view of the trivial nature of the prison offences mentioned above and the minor punishments of cuts in remission of only five days each. If the authority had considered the prison offences serious enough and conduct of the prisoner so unsatisfactory so as to forfeit the right of the prisoner to furlough leave (which is 14 days) that would have been reflected in the punishment. Moreover every prison offence does not necessarily render the conduct so unsatifactory for ever. If the application for furlough is rejected it can be again made after six months under Rule 9.

( 7 ) SECTION 46 of the Prison Act 1894 provides for punishments for prison offences and clause (4) as applicable in Gujarat reads as follows :such loss of privileges admissible under the remission or furlough or parole system for the time being in force as may be prescribed by rules made by the State Government.

( 8 ) RULE 1280 of the Bombay Jail Manual provides for minor and major punishments for prison offences Forfeiture of remission not exceeding Eve days is a minor punishment.

( 9 ) LOSS of furlough privilege would be a different and another punishment. A plurality or combination of punishments is also contemplated under Section 47 but that would be a major

Click Here to Read the rest of this document