DINESH MITARAMJI GABHANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE Petitioner Dinesh Mitaramji Gabhane, the prisoner, has filed this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the declaration that the circular of the State of Maharashtra dated 5-7-2002 issued to the prison Authorities requiring them not to count the period of parole while computing 14 years' of imprisonment mentioned in Section 433-A of Cr. P. C. is ultra vires with a request to quash and set aside the same. A further request is made that the State of Maharashtra and the Prison authorities be directed to decide the case of the petitioner of premature release at the earliest and categorise his case in Guideline No. 2b) of 14 -Years Rules and to release the petitioner prematurely.

(2.) THE petitioner is confined in Open prison at Paithan undergoing the imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302,i. P. C. He was convicted of the abovesaid offence by the Sessions Court, Bhandara, in Session Case no. 82 of 1989. The appeal preferred by him against the conviction in this Court was dismissed. Since the petitioner is convicted after 18-12-1978, the new guidelines dated 11-5-1992, i. e. "guidelines for Premature Release under 14 - Year Rules" and the provision of section 433-A of Cr. P. C. are applicable in his case. As per the petitioner, he has completed the actual imprisonment of 14 years and 2 months and after considering the remissions and parole days, he has completed more than 24 years and 6 months in prison. However, since as per the communication in the circular/letter dated 5-7-2002 bearing No. RLP 1002/205/ prs-3 issued by the Government of maharashtra, while computing 14 years' of imprisonment the parole days are not to be counted, he is not yet released from jail.

(3.) IT is the submission of the petitioner that the parole cannot be equated with bail as there is no suspension of sentence and it is also not a remission as per the rules of Prison manual. So, the period undergone by the prisoner during the parole has to be treated as a period of detention and the period spent in parole thus has to be counted towards the sentence undergone. The further submission of the petitioner is that since the period spent in parole is part of the sentence, the same should be included, also while computing 14 years' imprisonment for life convicts. The grievance of the petitioner is that although while computing the total period of imprisonment the parole days are included in the sentence, they are not so counted while computing 14 years' actual imprisonment mentioned in Section 433-A of Cr. P. C. According to the petitioner, the above circular dated 5-7-2002 violates Article 14 of the Constitution, as it discriminates between two classes of convicts, i. e. the convicts of lesser punishments than life imprisonment and the convicts of life imprisonment (where the death is also one of the punishments provided by law ). The convicts of lesser punishments are given the benefit of parole days immediately and are released prematurely, whereas the life convicts in whose case it is necessary under Section 433-A of Cr. P. C. that they should undergo 14 years' actual imprisonment, they are not given the benefit of parole days while computing the said 14 years' imprisonment. The restriction put by the government on counting the parole days while computing 14 years' actual imprisonment is unreasonable and against the provisions of law. Hence, the aforesaid communication in the letter dated 5-7-2002 is liable to be quashed and set aside.