(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 Prisoner's 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.