( 1. ) BOTH these petitions are disposed of by this common order.

( 2. ) PETITIONER Ram Sewak was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced for life imprisonment by Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh by judgment dated 17-4-1998. He filed an application for first leave under Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 (for short the Rules ). That application was allowed. Thereafter the petitioner filed another application for subsequent leave under Rule 8 of the Rules. The said application was returned by the Inspector General of Prisons to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jabalpur, relying upon the circular dated 10-9-2004 issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, Bhopal is ultra vires and is contrary to the provisions of the Prisoners Act, 1900 (for short the Act) and the Rules. Petitioner contends that the Act and the Rules no where provides that sanctioning authority of the subsequent leave application filed in the next calendar year will be the District Magistrate. He also challenges the insistence of the jail authorities for furnishing surety of Rs. 50,000/- for release on leave on the ground that it is contrary to the circular dated 19-6-2003 issued by the Inspector General of Prisons.

( 3. ) PETITIONER Vijay Patel was convicted for offence under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced for life imprisonment by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 56/1983. He contends that he applied for subsequent leave under Rule 8 of the Rules. Though his earlier applications for subsequent leaves were considered and allowed by the Inspector General of Prisons but this time in view of the circular dated 10-9-2004 his application was returned by the Inspector General of Prisons to the Superintendent General Jail treating it to be the first application, as being first application in the calendar year. The petitioner contends that the circular dated 10-9-2004 is ultra vires and is contrary to Rule 8 of the Rules.

( 4. ) IN the returns filed by the respondents, the respondents have stated that jail authorities sin some of the districts were wrongly construing provisions contained in the Rules inasmuch as they were under the impression that it is only the first application which is required to be considered by the District Magistrate and every second or subsequent application is required to be considered by the Inspector General of Prisons. Thus, jail authorities were referring all subsequent applications to the Inspector General of Prisons for consideration, even if the same was first application for leave in a calendar year. On account of said mistakes on the part of jail authorities, the consideration of applications for leave were being delayed. Thus in order to clarify the correct legal position the third respondent issued a circular dated 10-9-2004 whereby all jail authorities have been informed that every first application for grant of leave submitted in a calendar year is required to be considered by the District Magistrate and only such applications are required to be forwarded to the Inspector General of Prisons which are second in a calendar year. (Emphasis supplied)

( 5. ) THE Prisoners Act, 1900 has been amended by the Prisoners (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1985. Section 31-A deals with grant of leave to prisoners.

"31-A. Grant of leave to Prisoners. (1) Subject to the provisions to this part and to such conditions as may be prescribed, the State Government or any authority to which the State Government may delegate its powers in this behalf may grant leave to any prisoner who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than three years, for a period not exceeding twenty one days in a year, excluding the time required for journeys to the first place of his visit immediately after departure from the prison and from the place of last visit to the person back. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to a pri