Criminal Writ Petition No. 660 of 2012. Case: Prabhakar Raghu Shetty Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Writ Petition No. 660 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Petitioner: Niranjan Mogre, Amicus Curiae and For Respondents: Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP |
| Judges | A. M. Khanwilkar, J. and A. R. Joshi, J. |
| Issue | Prisons Act (9 of 1894) - Section 59; Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules (1959) - Rule 13 |
| Citation | 2012 CriLJ 3823 |
| Judgement Date | July 02, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
This petition, received through Jail, takes exception to the decision of the District Judge, dated 18th November, 2011, imposing punishment of deduction of 30 days of remission period, as a result of overstay of Furlough period, by the petitioner, for about 16 days.
-
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was released on Furlough on 8th August, 2010 and the period was to expire on 31st August, 2010. However, the petitioner applied for extension of time, to the Appropriate Authority. The Appropriate Authority rejected the said application on the finding that the petitioner has already availed of one extension in the year 2010. That finding was on the basis of the factual position that the petitioner had availed of Furlough in February, 2009, which was to expire on 12th March, 2009, but, at his request, it was extended from 13th March, 2009 till 26th March, 2009. He was again released on Furlough on 8th December, 2009, which period was to expire on 21st December, 2009. But, once again, it was extended from 22nd December, 2009 till 4th January, 2010. As a matter of fact, considering the sweep of Rule 13 of the rules of 1959, the Appropriate Authority was not competent to grant extension for the second time in the same calendar year i.e. 2009. Be that as it may, since the extension of the second Furlough, granted to the petitioner, in the year 2009 fell in the year 2010, the Authority assumed that it would result in second extension, which was not permissible under Rule 13 of Rules 1959. Rule 13 reads thus:
"13. Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing rules, the Sanctioning Authority may, on the application of a prisoner or otherwise, by an order in writing extend the period of furlough. The Sanctioning Authority may determine the extension of furlough leave which shall be granted for 14 days only once in a Calendar year and no further extension shall be granted to a prisoner on the same conditions."
-
On plain reading of this Rule, it is obvious that the Sanctioning Authority is competent to grant extension of Furlough Leave up to 14 days only once in a "calendar year" and no further extension can be granted to the prisoner on the same conditions. The question is, whether the second extension given to the petitioner in December, 2009, which incidentally spilled over upto 4th January, 2010, in calendar year 2010, can be reckoned for the purposes of considering the request of the petitioner for extension of Furlough...
To continue reading
Request your trial