ANIL SHANKARRAO ZADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims that State has denied him substantial right of furlough under The Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, (hereinafter called the said Rules) on the ground that Rule 4 (11) of the said Rules, provides that the prisoner convicted for offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, are not eligible for grant of furlough. Learned Advocate Shri Sirpurkar was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court in the matter.

(2.) THE State in its reply has stated that the petitioner had preferred Criminal Application No. 606 of 2001 for grant of parole or temporary bail which was rejected by this Court on 18-5-2001 and that the petitioner is not entitled to furlough.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner urged before me in so far as challenge on the basis of Rule 4 (11) of the said Rules is concerned, the said challenge of the petitioner is based upon misconception that Rule 4 (11) of the said Rules is applicable to Maharashtra whereas the said Rule 4 (11) is applicable only in the case of State of Gujarat. However, it was urged by learned Advocate for the petitioner that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in (Dadu alias Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra), reported in 2001 (5) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)264 : 2000 (8) S. C. C. 437, the petitioner would be entitled to furlough. In this connection, my attention was drawn to Rule 3, Rule 13, Rule 16 as also Rule 20 of the said Rules. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner since the furlough period is to be counted as remission of sentence under Rule 16 of the said Rules, it does not amount to suspension of sentence and as such the petitioner would, therefore, be entitled to furlough in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Dadu alias Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra (cited supra ).