B.M.MUNIRAJU Vs. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a convict for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short " NI Act ") is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement bearing No.BCP/J3/541/2020-21 dtd. 5/3/2022 (Annexure-E) wherein the petitioner's application for parole for a period of two months is rejected and to quash the report of the second respondent bearing No. Hennuru/PS/CC/B2/2022 dtd. 22/2/2022 (Annexure-F).

(2.) Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Sreedhar for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Vinod Kumar for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.K.Sreedhar submits that the petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the NI Act by this Court in Crl.Appeal.Nos.18/2011, 19/2011, 20/2011 and 21/2011 setting aside the judgment of acquittal dtd. 3/11/2010 in C.C.No.1761/2009, C.C.No.1763/2009, C.C.No.5682/2008 and C.C.No.8513/2008 on the file of 12th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. It is submitted that, against the judgment of conviction, the petitioner filed SLP (Crl.) 2953 and 2956 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dtd. 29/6/2021 directed to list the matter after four weeks to enable the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount in question in the Registry of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner filed an application to the respondent-authorities for parole so as to arrange the amount for depositing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondent-authorities failed to consider his application for grant of parole. This Court, by order dtd. 22/7/2021 in W.P.No.12765/2021 directed the respondent-Jail authorities to consider and dispose of the representation/application for parole. It is submitted that in pursuance of direction of this Court, the respondent-Jail authorities by endorsement dtd. 21/8/2021 rejected the request of the petitioner for parole. The said rejection under endorsement dtd. 21/8/2021 was the subject matter of W.P.No.16147/2021 before this Court. This Court, by order dtd. 13/1/2022 directed the respondents to consider petitioner' application for ordinary parole leniently for a short period. While issuing such direction, this Court held that Rule 191 of the Karnataka Prison Rules, 1974 cannot be invoked in case of the petitioner since conviction of the petitioner is for a minor offence and also observed that petitioner who is convicted for minor offence is entitled for consideration of his application for parole leniently. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the observation of this Court that Rule 191 of 1974 Rules is not invocable against the petitioner, the respondents again rejected the request of the petitioner based on the Police report dtd. 22/2/2022 at Annexure-F. It is submitted that the second respondent submitted a report stating that if the petitioner is released on parole, there is chance of petitioner involving in other fraudulent offenses and he may threaten the witnesses who had deposed against him. It is submitted that in the criminal case against the petitioner, only the complainant was examined and no other witnesses were examined. Hence, the said contention that the petitioner may threaten the witnesses cannot be accepted. Therefore, he submits that the report itself is against the factuals and the question of petitioner threatening witnesses would not arise. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to consider his application for parole on its merit.