LexATBIR versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R. 1166 ATBIR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (Criminal Appeal No. 714 of 2022) APRIL 29, 2022 [DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.] Delhi Prison Act, 2000 – s.2(h) – Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 – rr.1220-1225 – By order dtd.15.11.12 issued by the Hon’ble President of India on a mercy petition, the sentence of death awarded to the appellant was modified to imprisonment for life with the requirements that he would remain in prison for the whole of remainder of his natural life without parole and any remission in the term of imprisonment–Impugned order passed by the Director General of Prisons declined furlough to the appellant referring to the saidconditions of the order dtd. 15.11.12 – Challenged before High Court, writ petition dismissed –On appeal, held: In the 2018 Rules, the eligibility requirement to obtain furlough is of ‘3 Annual good conduct reports’ and not ‘3 Annual good conduct remissions’ – The expressions employed in Clause (I) of Rule 1223 cannot be read to mean that the prisoner ought to earn ‘good conduct remissions’ – Earning rewards is not equivalent to earning remissions – When furlough is an incentive towards good jail conduct, even if the person is otherwise not to get any remission and has to remain in prison for whole of the reminder of his natural life, that does not mean that his right to seek furlough is foreclosed – Even if he would spend some time on furlough, that will not come to his aid so as to seek remission because of the fact that he has to remain in prison for whole of the reminder of his natural life – Further, in the present case, the Presidential order bars parole as also remission but there is no mention of the treatment of entitlement towards furlough – Whole scheme of granting furlough is based on the approach of reformation and as incentive for maintaining good conduct – Thus, even if the appellant is to remain in prison for the whole of remainder of his life, the expectations from him of good conduct in jail would always remain and the lawful consequences of good conduct, including that of furlough, cannot be denied, particularly when the same has not been prohibited in the order [2022] 8 S.C.R. 1166 A B C D E F G H 1167 dtd. 15.11.12 – Appellant cannot be denied furlough with reference to the order dtd. 15.11.12 – Impugned order passed by the High Court and the order of the Director General of Prisons are set aside – Case of the appellant for grant of furlough is restored for reconsideration of the Director General of Prisons. Criminal law – Grant of furlough – Held:In furlough, the prisoner is deemed to be serving the sentence inasmuch as the period of furlough is not reduced from actual serving period – The conduct is predominantly decisive of entitlement towards furlough. Criminal Law – Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 – Parole and furlough – Distinction between – Discussed. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Furlough is defined in Section 2(h) of the Delhi Prison Act, 2000. Chapter XIX of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 deals with the matters concerning parole and furlough. The objectives of parole and furlough are set forth in Rules 1197 to 1200 thereof. The specific subject of furlough is further dealt with in Rules 1220 to 1225 of the said Rules of 2018. [Paras 9.1- 9.3][1178-C-D; 1179-F] 1.2 Having examined the matter in its totality, it is difficult to agree with the reasoning in the order impugned and with the contentions that once it has been provided by the Hon’ble President of India that the appellant would remain in prison for whole of the reminder of his natural life without parole and without remission in the term of imprisonment, all his other rights, particularly those emanating from good jail conduct, as available in the Rules of 2018 stand foreclosed. In the Rules of 2018, the eligibility requirement to obtain furlough is of ‘3 Annual good conduct reports’ and not ‘3 Annual good conduct remissions’. The expressions employed in Clause (I) of Rule 1223 of the Rules of 2018 are that the prisoner ought to maintain ‘Good conduct in the prison and should have earned rewards in last 3 Annual good conduct report’ and further that he should continue ‘to maintain good conduct’. Even these expressions cannot be read to mean that the prisoner ought to earn ‘good conduct remissions’. In the scheme of the Rules of 2018 it cannot be said that earning ATBIR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI A B C D E F G H 1168 SUPREME COURT REPORT
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.