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

1990 Supreme(Guj) 151

K.G.SHAH, R.A.MEHTA
RODAJI MAHAJI – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: D.K.TRIVEDI, J.C.BHATT

MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner-Prisoner is undergoing imprisonment for life and he is in Jail since 1979. He has been released on parole and furlough from time to time.

( 2 ) ON 21-10-1987, at the time of dinner, the prisoner misbehaved and assaulted watchman Popatji. In respect of that Jail offence, inquiry was held and the prisoner had orally confessed the guilt and order of punishment was passed and the following punishments were imposed : (i) Cut in remission of 15 days. (ii) Withdrawal of canteen facility and separate confinement.

( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that even though the punishment of forfeiture of furlough was not imposed, the authorities have refused furlough for the year 1988 on the ground that he had committed a Jail offence.

( 4 ) RULE 4 of Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 makes a provision as to when the prisoner shall not be granted furlough and the relevant part reads as follows :"the following categories of prisoners shall not be considered eligible for furlogh. xxx xxx xxx (5) Prisoners who, in the opinion of the Superintendent of the Prison, show tendency towards crime. (6) Prisons whose conduct is, in the opinion of the Superinte








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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top