Rohan Dhungat Versus The State of Goa & Ors

Rohan Dhungat  Versus The State of Goa & Ors 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले


REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NOS. 12574-12577 OF 2022
(@ DIARY NO. 29535 OF 2022)
Rohan Dhungat Etc. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Goa & Ors Etc. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay at
Goa in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 466 of 2021, 467 of 2021,
471 of 2021 and 472 of 2021 dated 03.08.2022, by which,
the High Court has dismissed the said writ petitions holding
that the period of Parole is to be excluded from the period of
sentence while considering the 14 years to actual
imprisonment for the purpose of premature release, the
original writ petitioners have preferred the present Special
Leave Petitions.
Page 1 of 10
2. That the original petitioners are all convicts undergoing life
imprisonment. That all of them were released on parole
under the provisions of Goa Prisons Rules, 2006
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 2006”). That all the
original petitioners applied for premature release under the
Rules, 2006. The State Sentence Revenue Board
recommended for premature release. The State Government
sought opinion of the convicting Court on the premature
release of the petitioners. The convicting Court opined that
the convicts shall not be released prematurely considering
the gravity of offence. Therefore, the State Government
rejected the premature release of the petitioners. The
convicts – original writ petitioners, therefore, preferred the
respective writ petitions before the High Court of Bombay
challenging the State’s decision to not considering their case
for premature release. Before the High Court, it was the case
on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the convicts
have completed 14 years in custody and therefore, as such
were entitled for premature release. It was the case on
behalf of the convicts- original petitioners that the period of
parole is not to be excluded from the period of sentence
under the Rules, 2006 while considering 14 years of actual
Page 2 of 10
imprisonment for the purpose of premature release. Taking
into consideration the Rule 335 of the Rules, 2006 which
provides that the period of release on Furlough and Parole
“shall be counted as remission of sentence ….” the High
Court by impugned judgment and order has observed and
held that the period of parole is to be excluded from the
period of sentence while considering 14 years of actual
imprisonment for the purpose of premature release. As the
respective convicts – original writ petitioners excluding
period of parole did not complete 14 years of actual
imprisonment, the High Court by the impugned judgment and
 Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah has pronounced the
reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship
and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed
reportable judgment.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA
TRIPATHI)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT
REGISTRAR
(signed reportable judgment is placed on the file) order has
dismissed the respective writ petitions. Feeling aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and
order passed by the High Court, the original writ petitioners
have preferred the present petitions.
Page 3 of 10
3. Shri Siddharth Dave, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the respective petitioners has vehemently
submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case
the Hon’ble High Court has seriously erred in holding that
the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of
sentence under the Rules, 2006 while considering 14 years
of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release.
3.1. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Dave learned Senior
Counsel for the respective petitioners that the Hon’ble High
Court has erred in relying on the Rule 335 of the Rules,
2006 to hold that since period of release on parole is
counted as remission, the same cannot be counted as part
of sentence.
3.2. It is submitted that even while on parole the accused
/convicts can be said to be in custody / judicial custody and
therefore, period of parole is to be included while considering
14 years of actual imprisonment for the purpose of
premature release.
3.3. It is vehemently submitted that as such the view taken by the
High Court is just contrary to the decision of this Court in the
Page 4 of 10
case of Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India reported
in (2000) 3 SCC 409 as well as in the case of Avtar Singh
vs. State of Haryana reported in (2002) 3 SCC 409 (para
11).
3.4. It is further submitted by Shri Dave learned senior counsel
for the original writ petitioners-convicts that even as per
Section 55 of the Prisons Act, 1894, a prisoner when being
taken to or from any prison in which he may be lawfully
confined, shall be deemed to be in prison and therefore,
deemed to be in custody and therefore, the period of parole
shall have to be included as in custody for the purpose of
actual period of imprisonment while considering 14 years of
actual imprisonment.
Making above submissions, it is prayed to hold that the
period of parole is to be included while considering 14 years
of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release.
4. The short question which is posed for the consideration of
this Court is whether the period of parole is to be excluded
from the period of sentence under the Rules, 2006 while
considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for the purpose
Page 5 of 10
of premature release?
5. While considering the aforesaid question /issue, the object
and purpose of parole is required to be taken into
consideration.
Parole is a conditional release. Parole can be granted
in case of short-term imprisonment. Duration of
parole extends to one month. Parole is granted by the State
Government. For parole, specific reason is required. Parole
can be granted for number of times.
6. “Imprisonment” is defined under Rule 2(21) of the Rules,
2006. “Imprisonment” means imprisonment of either
description as defined in Section 53 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and the General Clauses Act,1897. The term of
imprisonment is not included in the computation of term of
parole.
7. Keeping in mind the above, the issue involved in the present
case viz. whether the period of parole is to be excluded
from the period of sentence while considering 14 years
of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release
is to be considered.
Page 6 of 10

 7.1. The High Court while passing the impugned judgment and
order and taking the view that the period of parole is to be
excluded from the period of sentence while considering 14
years of actual imprisonment has heavily relied upon or
considered Rule 335 of the Rules, 2006 which provides that
the period of release on Furlough and Parole “shall be
counted as remission of sentence ….”. Once the period of
parole is to be counted as remission of sentence, as rightly
observed and held by the High Court, the period of parole is
also required to be excluded from the period of sentence
while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment.
8. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this
Court in the case of Sunil Fulchand Shah (supra) relied
upon by learned senior counsel for the respective petitioners
– convicts / prisoners is concerned, the said decision shall
not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. It was a
case of detenue under the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act.
Even in the said decision, it is observed and held that the
period of detention would not stand automatically extended
by any period of parole granted to the detenu unless the
order of parole or rules or instructions specifically indicates
Page 7 of 10
as a term and condition of parole, to the contrary. In the
present case the term ‘imprisonment’ is not included in the
computation of term of parole. Rule 335 specifically provides
that parole is to be counted as remission of sentence.
Therefore, the said decision would not be applicable to the
facts of the case on hand.
8.1. Similarly, the decision of this case in the case of Avtar
Singh (supra) also shall not be applicable to the facts of the
case on hand while considering the issue viz. whether the
period of parole is to be excluded from the period of
sentence under the Rules, 2006 while considering 14 years
of actual imprisonment.
9. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the petitioners
relying upon Section 55 of the Prisons Act, 1894 that even
on parole the prisoners shall be deemed to be in custody
and therefore, the said period is to be included for the
purpose of actual imprisonment is concerned, the aforesaid
has no substance. Section 55 of the Prisons Act, 1894 shall
not be applicable with respect to release on parole. Section
55 of the Prisons Act, 1894 shall be applicable in a case
where a prisoner is taken out from any prison, he shall deem
Page 8 of 10
to have been in prison. However, the same shall not be
applicable with respect to release on parole.
10. If the submission on behalf of the prisoners that the period of
parole is to be included while considering 14 years of actual
imprisonment is accepted, in that case, any prisoner who
may be influential may get the parole for number of times as
there is no restrictions and it can be granted number of times
and if the submission on behalf of the prisoners is accepted,
it may defeat the very object and purpose of actual
imprisonment. We are of the firm view that for the purpose of
considering actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be
excluded. We are in complete agreement with the view taken
by the High Court holding so.
11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all
these Special Leave Petitions deserve to be dismissed and
are accordingly dismissed.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
 ………………………………….J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
Page 9 of 10
JANUARY 05, 2023
Page 10 of 10

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

Atal Pension Yojana-(APY Chart) | अटल पेंशन योजना