Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jagannath Raghunath Shelke, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment on 15th April 1996. He was released on parole on 10th September 1997, but failed to surrender and was arrested on 28th June 1999. The jail authorities penalized him by removing his name from the remission system for 10 years. The petitioner had been granted furlough leave on six occasions; on five of those occasions, the furlough was extended by 14 days. Only the furlough granted from 18th September 2012 to 17th October 2012 fell after the amendment of Rule 16 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, which came into effect on 23rd April 2012. The amended Rule 16 allowed the extended period of furlough to be counted as remission. The petitioner sought a direction that the extended periods on the earlier five furloughs also be counted as remission. The court noted that the prayer challenging the penalty order (prayer clause (a)) could not be considered due to a prior dismissed petition. The only surviving prayer was for counting the earlier extended furlough periods as remission. The court held that the amended Rule 16 operates prospectively and cannot apply to furloughs granted before the amendment. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Prisons Law - Furlough - Remission - Rule 16 of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - Amendment w.e.f. 23rd April 2012 - The petitioner, a life convict, sought counting of extended furlough periods (14 days each) granted on five occasions prior to the amendment as remission. The Court held that the amended Rule 16, which allows such counting, operates prospectively and cannot apply to furloughs granted before the amendment date. The petition was dismissed as the extended periods were granted before 23rd April 2012. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the extended period of 14 days furlough leave granted to the petitioner on five occasions prior to the amendment of Rule 16 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (effective 23rd April 2012) should be counted as remission of sentence.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The amended Rule 16 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, effective from 23rd April 2012, operates prospectively and cannot be applied to furlough extensions granted prior to that date.
Law Points
- Retrospective application of statutory rules
- Furlough and remission under Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules
- 1959
- Rule 16 amendment prospective effect
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (12) 62
Writ Petition No.1485 of 2013
Shri Madhav J. Jamdar for the Petitioner, Shri J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
Jagannath Raghunath Shelke
The State of Maharashtra, Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra State, Pune, The Superintendent, Yerawada Central Prison, Pune
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking direction to count extended furlough periods as remission of sentence.
Remedy Sought
Direction to count extended period of 14 days furlough granted on five occasions prior to amendment of Rule 16 as remission of sentence.
Filing Reason
Petitioner, a life convict, was granted furlough on six occasions; on five occasions the furlough was extended by 14 days. After amendment of Rule 16 w.e.f. 23rd April 2012, only the last furlough extension was counted as remission. Petitioner sought similar benefit for earlier extensions.
Previous Decisions
A separate petition challenging the penalty order (removal from remission system for 10 years) was dismissed for non-prosecution; hence that prayer could not be considered.
Issues
Whether the amended Rule 16 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, which allows counting of extended furlough period as remission, applies retrospectively to furloughs granted before the amendment date of 23rd April 2012.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that since he is a life convict, the extended furlough periods should be counted as remission to reduce his actual sentence, relying on State of Haryana v. Jagdish.
Respondents opposed, contending that the amendment is prospective and cannot apply to furloughs granted before 23rd April 2012.
Ratio Decidendi
Statutory amendments are presumed to operate prospectively unless expressly made retrospective. The amended Rule 16, which allows counting of extended furlough as remission, applies only to furloughs granted on or after the amendment date (23rd April 2012).
Judgment Excerpts
The only prayer which survives for consideration is the prayer clause (b) which seeks a direction that in case of earlier furlough granted to the Petitioner, the extended period of 14 days should be counted as a remission of sentence.
The amended Rule 16 of the said Rules which was brought on the Rule book from 23rd April 2012... the extended period of 14 days furlough leave was counted as a remission of sentence.
Procedural History
Petitioner was convicted on 15th April 1996 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. Released on parole on 10th September 1997, failed to surrender, arrested on 28th June 1999. Penalized on 2nd February 2000 by removal from remission system for 10 years. Filed Writ Petition No.1485 of 2013 challenging the penalty and seeking counting of extended furlough as remission. The challenge to penalty was dismissed earlier; only the remission prayer remained.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302
- Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959: Rule 16
