Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pundalik G. Gole, was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 669 of 2011 for offences under Sections 376(2)(c), 377, 307, 304-II, 354, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. He was sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 376(2)(c) and 377 IPC. On 7th October 2016, the petitioner applied for furlough, which was rejected by order dated 6th March 2017 primarily on the ground that he was convicted for an offence under Section 376 IPC (rape). The petitioner appealed, but the appeal was dismissed on 10th August 2017. Consequently, he filed the present criminal writ petition challenging the rejection and also seeking a direction to the respondent-State to rectify Government Notifications dated 1st December 2015 and 26th August 2016. However, during the pendency of the petition, these notifications were substituted by a new Notification dated 16th April 2018, which carried out necessary amendments and deletions. The court heard both sides and noted that the only relevant fact was the conviction for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 377 IPC. The court found no merit in the petition regarding furlough, as the rejection was based on the nature of the offence. Regarding the prayer for rectification of notifications, the court observed that since the notifications were no longer in force and had been substituted, the prayer had become infructuous. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Furlough - Conviction under Section 376 IPC - Rejection of Furlough - The petitioner, convicted under Section 376 IPC, applied for furlough which was rejected on the ground of the nature of the offence. The court upheld the rejection, noting that the conviction for rape is a relevant factor for denying furlough. (Paras 2-5) B) Government Notifications - Substitution - Mootness - The petitioner sought rectification of Government Notifications dated 1st December 2015 and 26th August 2016. However, these notifications were substituted by a new Notification dated 16th April 2018, rendering the prayer infructuous. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to furlough leave despite being convicted for an offence under Section 376 IPC, and whether the court should direct rectification of Government Notifications that have been substituted.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The rejection of furlough is upheld, and the prayer for rectification of notifications is infructuous as the notifications have been substituted.
Law Points
- Furlough
- Conviction under Section 376 IPC
- Government Notification substitution
- Mootness
