JINA MOHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) XXX XXX XXX

(2.) The petitioner -prisoner is undergoing sentence imposed upon him since 5 -11 -1984. He has also undergone 12 days' imprisonment as an under -trial prisoner. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that on the basis of calculation of two years' actual imprisonment undergone, he is entitled to one furlough. The petitioner -prisoner contends that he has been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 376 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been ordered to undergo R.I. for five years for offence under Section 376 and R.I. for one month for offence under Section 341. He has also been ordered to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 3 months and 7 days. The substantive sentence is ordered to run concurrently. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions of Rule 3(1) of the Bombay (Parole and Furlough) Rules, 1959 the petitioner is entitled to be released on furlough for a period of two weeks for every year of actual imprisonment undergone. The submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that Note 2 which is part of the rule itself, makes it clear that the period of imprisonment shall be computed as the total period for Which a person is sentenced even though one or more sentence is concurrent. Having regard to this provision of the rule it is clear that the total sentence exceeds 5 years' period of imprisonment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Note 2 is ultra vires the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. In his submission this provision is arbitrary and it has no relevance with the object to be achieved. The submission cannot be accepted. One of the object of parole and furlough rules is to see that the prisoners may not have to pass monotonous life in the prison and may have an opportunity to keep their contacts alive with the outside world. But at the same time the Safety of the prisoner as well as the discipline in the prison are also required to be maintained. That is the reason why the gravity of the offence and the period of sentence imposed upon are taken as relevant criteria. These factors have got to be taken into consideration while releasing the prisoners on parole or furlough. Note 2 provides that the total period for which a prisoner is sentenced be taken into consideration. By this provision the legislature has only introduced the relevant criterion, i.e. the gravity of the offence (s) committed by the prisoner. By no stretch of reasoning it can be said that this provision is arbitrary. The contention that this provision has no relevance with the object to be achieved is also without any merit. In view of this position, the challenge to this part of the rule (Note 2) fails. No other contention is raised in support of the prayer that the prisoner is entitled to furlough for a period of two weeks at a time for every year of actual imprisonment.

(3.) XXX XXX XXX